JOGEN C THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Respondent No.2 is the original complainant and the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are the original accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Case No.251/S of 1997 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Bhoiwada at Mumbai. According to the complainant, the accused Nos. 1 to 6 by the prospectus distributed through M/s. Chandrakant & Brothers, Real Estate, Project Management & Consultants offered for sale to the complainant plot No.64 admesauring 40,000 sq. ft. for farm house at Panvel. The complainant agreed to purchase the said plot No.64 for consideration of Rs.2,80,000/-. The payment was to be made by monthly instalments. Out of the total consideration amount, a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- was paid by the complainant to accused No.1 firm through its partner accused No.2 and through petitioner Jogen C. Thakker, a partner of M/s. Chandrakant & Bros. upon the assurance given by the accused persons in the prospectus in respect of the said plot No.64. However, accused No.1 to 6 failed to execute even the agreement for sale and also conveyance deed. A letter was issued to accused No.1 on 31.10.1992 calling upon the accused No.1 firm to execute the sale deed. Copy of that letter was also sent to the petitioner Jogen C. Thakker. However, they failed to execute any document or agreement for sale because accused Nos. 1 to 6 had no conveyance or title of plot No.64. In the complaint, petitioner Jogen C. Thakker and Chandrakant Thakker, who were the partners of M/s. Chandrakant & Bros., were shown as witnesses. After appearance of the accused persons, the complainant was called upon to lead evidence before framing of charge. The complainant examined herself as prosecution witness No.1 and deposed as per the allegations in the complaint. In her evidence, she proved the signatures of the present applicant on the receipts issued by him about the payments made by cheque. As receipts were issued by the petitioner at that stage, on behalf of the complainant, an application was made before the learned Magistrate to take action against the present petitioner as an accused under Sec. 319, Cr.P.C. It appears that after hearing the Advocates for the complainant and the accused Nos. 1 to 6, the Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against Chandrakant C. Thakker and the present petitioner Jogen C.Thakkar by making following observations :

(3.) The order issuing process was challenged by the present applicant by filing Revision Application before the Sessions Court. That application was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.