NIKITA JIGNESH SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ashok M. Chopra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S. R. Samel, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 and Ms. M. R. Tidke, learned APP for the State.

(2.) The Petitioner has challenged the two orders passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th court, Borivali, Mumbai, in CC No.822/N/2020. The first order was passed on 24/12/2020 and the second order under challenge was passed on 29/12/2020. Both these orders were challenged before the Court of Sessions at Dindoshi, Greater Mumbai. After the Revision Application was dismissed, the Petitioner has challenged both these orders in this Petition. The Petitioner is the original first informant who had lodged FIR vide C.R.No.770/2020 on 12/10/2020 at Malad Police Station u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code .

(3.) The gist of the FIR is that the first informant and her husband were knowing accused Suresh Grover and his family. Because of their friendship, the accused Suresh used to take their car frequently. The said car was purchased by the first informant-Petitioner by taking loan from the HDFC Bank. The EMI was being paid from the informant's account maintained with Saraswat Co-op Bank, Malad Branch, Malad (W), Mumbai. The EMI was paid till February 2018. But the next month's EMI was pending. Suresh's son took the car with the informant's permission on one occasion. The documents of the car were in the car itself. After that, the first informant received communication from HDFC Bank that the loan was fully repaid and NOC was also issued. The first informant was suspicious and made enquiries. She came to know that the car was transferred in the name of the Respondent No.3 herein. Therefore, she lodged the FIR.