Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment in C. C. No.988/PW/2018
Filed on .. 04.04.2018
Registered on .. 04.04.2018
Delivered on .. 04.06.2024
Duration .. 06Y 02M 0D
CNR No.MHMM190042822018
Exh.11
BEFORE 65th METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
(Judgment as per Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: C.C. No.988/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
During the period August 2016 to
24.01.2017
(c) The name of the informant,
if any;
: Through PSO Vile Parle Police
Station (CR No.28/2017)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: 1. Shashikant Suresh Sathe 33 yrs
Occupation : Service
2. Laxmi Suresh Sathe – 50 yrs
Occupation : Service
Both R/o.: New Airport Colony,
Vile Parle (E), Mumbai
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec.419, 420, 465, 468, 471
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination, (if any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order; : As Per Final Order
h) The date of such order; : 04.06.2024
Appearance : Ld. APP. Samrat Patil for the State
Ld. Adv. R.R. Shinde for the accused
-- 1 of 6 --
2 Judgment in C. C. No.988/PW/2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 04.06.2024)
1. Accused have been chargesheet ed for the offences
punishable U/Sec.419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short “IPC”).
The prosecution case in short is as follows :
During the period August 2015 to 24.01.2017 at Building No.
A/1/03, New Airport Colony, Parsiwada, Chhagala Marg, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai, the accused in furtherance of their common intention accused
no.1 Shashikant Sathe, his mother accused no.2 Laxmi Sathe and
wanted accused Virubhai who pretend himself as a MMRDA officer to
the informant viz. Ashwini Dinesh Hamav and other witnesses viz.
Mandar Gangaram Pingulkar, Nandini Ganpat Budha and Gautam
Ganpat Budha and promised to them to give flat at MMRDA at cheaper
rate and induced them to pay the cash amount in cheque. Lateron,
accused failed to repay the said amount or give possession of flats to
them. Therefore, informant and witnesses lodged complaint against the
accused persons. On the basis of complaint Vile Parle Police station has
registered an offence bearing Crime No.28/2017. During the
investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded statement of
witnesses, prepared spot panchanama as well as seizure panchanama
and seized alleged documents. After completion of investigation
submitted chargesheet against the accused.
2. My Learned Predecessor has framed charge dtd. 23.01.2020
against the accused no. 1 and 2 vide Exh.2 and it read over and
explained to accused in vernacular, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. Their defence is of total denial and false implication.
-- 2 of 6 --
3 Judgment in C. C. No.988/PW/2018
3. Since no incriminating evidence against accused, therefore
statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code stands
dispensed with.
4. Following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded findings thereon for the reasons discussed herein after :
S.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether prosecution proves that, during the
period August 2016 till 24.01.2017 at New
Airport Colony, Vile parle (E), Mumbai the
accused in furtherance of their common
intention cheated the informant viz. Ashwini
Dinesh Hamav and other witnesses by false
personation and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/Sec. 419 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?
...Not
proved
2 Whether prosecution proves that on the above
date, time & place, accused in furtherance of
their common intention cheated the informant
and witnesses by taking cash of Rs.
17,30,000/from them for your own purpose
by inducement and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/Sec.420 r/w Sec.34 of
IPC ?
...Not
proved
-- 3 of 6 --
4 Judgment in C. C. No.988/PW/2018
3 Whether prosecution proves that on the above
date, time & place, accused in furtherance of
their common intention cheated the informant
by making duplicate allotment letter, duplicate
MMRDA letterhead, seal and duplicates ration
cards of informant and witnesses etc with
intent to cause damage/loss to the informant
with intent to commit fraud and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/sec.465
r/w 34of IPC?
...Not
proved
4 Whether prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time & place, accused in furtherance
of their common intention cheated the
informant by forging above said documents
intending that said documents shall be used for
the purpose of cheating and thereby committed
an offence punishable U/Sec.468 r/w Sec.34 of
IPC ?
...Not
proved
5 Whether prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time & place, accused in furtherance
of their common intention fraudulently used
forged documents as genuine one and thereby
committed an offence punishable U/Sec.471
r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?
...Not
proved
6 What order ? Accused are
acquitted
-- 4 of 6 --
5 Judgment in C. C. No.988/PW/2018
R E A S O N S
As to points No. 1 to 5 :
5. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined in all four witnesses i.e. P.W. No. 1 Ashwini Dinesh Hamav at
Exh.6, P.W.No.2 Mandar Gangaram Pingulkar at Exh.8, P.W.No.3
Nandini Ganpat Budha at Exh.9 and P.W.No.4 Gautam Ganpat Budha at
Exh.10. Thereafter, the prosecution filed evidence closed pursis,
therefore, evidence of prosecution closed by passing order below Exh.1.
6. P.W. No.1 informant Ashwini Dinesh Hamav and other
witnesses to viz. P.W. No.2 Mandar Gangaram Pingulkar, P.W. No.3
Nandini Ganpat Budha and P.W.No.4 Gautam Ganpat Budha
categorically deposed in their examinationinchief that they had lodged
the complaint at Vile Parle Police Station in the year 2015. Accused had
taken money from them in respect of Flat. Accused had cheated them
and not given flats. Therefore, they had lodged the complaint against
Veerubhai, Shashikant Sathe and mother of Shashikant Sathe. The FIR is
at Exh.7. During the crossexamination they had stated that the dispute
with the accused person had settled outside the Court and they do not
want to proceed with the present complaint against the accused.
Compromise pursis Exh.5 bears their signature.
7. It is pertinent to note that, as per the prosecution case, the
informant as well as witnesses are not supporting to the prosecution,
hence, nothing incriminating evidence came on record against the accused.
It is also pertinent to note that from the evidence of prosecution, it
appears that the informant and other witnesses settled their dispute
-- 5 of 6 --
6 Judgment in C. C. No.988/PW/2018
outside the Court and admitted the signatures and contents of
compromise pursis at Exh.5. Considering facts and circumstances, I
come to the conclusion that the compromise took place between accused
and the informant and other witnesses, therefore, accused are entitled
to be acquitted. Therefore, I answered points No.1 to 5 are in the
negative and for answering point No.6, I pass following order :
ORDER
1) Accused viz. 1. Shashikant Suresh Sathe 2. Laxmi Suresh
Sathe are acquitted vide Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. for
the offences punishable U/Sec.419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w.
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2) Bail bonds of accused are stands cancelled.
3) Accused are directed to furnish P.B. of Rs.15,000/ each
for appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate Court, in case
appeal is filed against the judgment of this Court vide Section
437(A) of the Cr.P.C.
4) Judgment dictated & declared in an open Court.
Date : 04.06.2024 (Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
Metropolitan Magistrate
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
ask
Dictated &
typed on : 04.06.2024
Signed on : 04.06.2024
-- 6 of 6 --