GEORGE DIAZ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for R1 and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant entered into a construction agreement dtd. 2/9/2015 with M/s. Uranus Innovation Turnkey Solution Private Limited. The first petitioner herein George Diaz and one Suresh Muthukrishnan who were classmates had agreed to hand over a fully constructed villa to the defacto complainant. The consideration was fixed at Rs.50,00,000.00. The defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 upfront. The balance amount was to be paid as a loan by the Axis Bank. The Villa was to come up of the land belonging to the father-in-law of the first petitioner. The Villa was to come up and handed over within a period of 12 months.

(3.) The allegation of the defacto complainant is that the construction was never completed. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would further allege that in all such cases, the creditor bank will release instalments only stage by stage. It appears that the M/s. Uranus Innovation Turnkey Solution Private Limited was struck off and that they were able to secure the entire loan amount from the Axis Bank even before completing the construction. This according to the defacto complainant indicates that the accused had a dishonest intention from the very inception. Though the petitioner's counsel would argue that the case on hand is having predominantly a civil profile and as per the construction agreement, the aggrieved party can avail arbitrary remedy, I am not persuaded by the said submission.