C P KOTWAL Vs. ALI ASHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is hereby praying for quashing the Criminal Complaint bearing No. 131/misc. /97 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Bombay, as well as the order of the said Court directing investigation to be made by Sakinaka Police Station Officer in view of provisions of Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code of convenience ).

(2.) FEW facts need to be stated for unfolding the controversy in question. Respondent No. 1-Ali Ashad had purchased a flat bearing No. D/-702 in Lake Castle, Hiranandani Garden, Pawai, Mumbai constructed by Apex Construction in Hirandani Complex which was allotted to respondent No. 1 on 14-4-1990 for sum of Rs. 6,32,500/- to be paid in instalments. The said purchase price has been paid by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, according to the contention of the petitioner, had purchased a flat from C. I. D. C. O. at C. B. D. in the year 1983 but was unable to pay the loan which was to be repaid in that context. The same was repaid by son-in-law of the petitioner namely S. P. Agarwal in the year 1989. According to the contention of the petitioner, in the year 1990-91 respondent No. 1 borrowed some money from petitioner's family. He was in financial difficulties as contended by the petitioner and, therefore, attempted to sell the flat in the year 1992. He was unable to find a suitable purchaser and, therefore, approached the petitioner to purchase the said flat for Rs. 6,80,000/- against the adjustment of their mutual accounts. As per the say of petitioner, respondent No. 1 thereafter, gave a letter of sale and executed a power of attorney in favour of petitioner's son-in-law, Shri S. P. Agarwal.

(3.) ON 31st of December, 1992 the respondent No. 1 had come to the petitioner and told him that some formalities are to be completed and, therefore, he wanted to have possession of the said flat. The legal formalities of transfer could not be completed on account of communal riots in the year 1993. Therefore, he handed over the possession of the said flat to petitioner as contended by him in the year 1993 and since that time the petitioner and his family members are residing in the said flat as owners.