SHUEL NOMAN BHAMLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications are decided by this common order because they arise out of the same offence pertaining to the same crime number. Initially the offence was registered at Juhu police station vide C.R.No. 56 of 2019 on 13/02/2019, under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code . After that, the investigation was transferred to DCB, CID. They registered their own FIR vide C.R.No.87 of 2019 and are presently conducting the investigation.

(2.) Heard Mr. Mobin Solkar, learned counsel for the applicant in ABA/ST/3393/2020, Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned counsel for the applicant in ABA/ST/3496/2020, Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the State in both the applications and Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, learned counsel for the complainant in both the applications.

(3.) The FIR is lodged by one Vijay Thakkar. He has stated that, in January, 2012 he got acquainted with the applicant Shuel Bhamla. He told the informant that one bunglow at Juhu admeasuring 1700 sq.ft. was available for sale. The name of the bunglow was 'Madhuban Bunglow'. The bunglow was owned by the applicant Talvir Sohal. The informant was told that the said bunglow was to be purchased by the applicant Shuel from applicant Talvir. For that transaction some token amount was paid to the applicant Talvir. The informant was told that the applicant Shuel did not have sufficient money to complete that transaction and that he and Talvir were in need of money. Therefore, proposal was made to the informant to purchase that property. The informant decided to purchase that property. A meeting was arranged, which was attended by the applicant Shuel, informant and one Ajay @ Kulvinder Bains. The informant was told that Ajay was looking after applicant Shuel's work. The informant decided to purchase that bunglow for Rs.9,11,00,000/-. The applicant Talvir's sister Rajpas Kaur and her husband Amarjeet Singh were residing on the ground floor. On the first floor Dr. Zara was having a dental clinic. The applicant Shuel and aforementioned Ajay took the responsibility to get this premises in the bunglow vacated. In April 2012 the informant paid Rs.11 lakhs to the applicant Shuel. On 07/08/2012 an agreement was registered with the Sub Registrar at Andheri. The agreement was with the applicant Talvir mentioning that the bunglow was being purchased by the informant for the said amount. The applicant Shuel had signed that agreement as confirming party and Ajay had signed as a witness. The FIR mentions the amount paid by the informant. The amount of Rs.2 crores were paid to the applicant Talvir. The FIR mentions that, in all Rs.7,37,00,000/- were paid by the first informant. Some amount was paid in the account of M/s. Bhamla Construction Pvt. Ltd. connected with the applicant Shuel. Some amount was paid in cash. The informant's case is that the applicant Shuel was paid amount of Rs.2,80,00,000/-. The FIR further mentions that, in April 2014 process of handing over possession to the informant was started. During that period Ajay introduced one Ashwin Dadha to the informant. Ajay requested the informant to permit Ashwin Dadha to stay in the garage of the bunglow. The informant permitted him to occupy the garage, however, Ashwin Dadha continued to stay in that garage for more than three months. Therefore, the informant requested applicant Shuel and Ajay to evict him. At that time, they asked the informant to pay Rs.3 crores more. At that time the informant was told that, before he had entered into the transaction with the applicant Talvir, said Ashwin Dadha had already entered into tenancy agreement with applicant Talvir. This fact was not told to the informant. It was suppressed from him. The informant came to know that Ashwin Dadha had filed a suit bearing No.234 of 2014 against applicant Talvir in the Small Causes Court. The informant intervened in that suit. In that suit, the applicant Talvir had initially supported the first informant. Ultimately, that suit was withdrawn by Ashwin Dadha, however, no orders were passed for eviction of Ashwin Dadha from that suit premises. The informant continuously requested Ajay and Ashwin to vacate the premises, but they demanded Rs.15 crores. The informant came to know that the applicant Talvir had purchased that bunglow from one Madhukanta Mehta in the year 1989, but one Sameer Nanavati had claimed title of that bunglow and for that a suit was filed in the City Civil Court in the year 1992. The FIR mentions that the applicant Talvir had executed power of attorney in favour of Ajay to represent her in that suit. Thus, the informant was convinced that his amount was misappropriated, peaceful possession of the bungalow was not given to him. All the accused in collusion have committed this offence. Therefore, he lodged this FIR.