SHAHED KAMAL Vs. A. SURTI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

(2.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dtd. 10/2/2021 passed by learned Additional Session Judge at Borivali Division, Mumbai in Criminal Revision Application No. 345 of 2016 whereby the learned Additional Session Judge dismissed the Revision Application affirming an order dtd. 4/10/2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali in CC No. 2042/SS/2016 issuing process against the petitioners No. 1 to 7/ accused for an offence punishable under Sec. 500 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the Penal Code).

(3.) The background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under:- M/s. A Surti Developers Private Limited, the respondent No. 1/complainant (the developer) is a private limited company. It is engaged in the business of development of real estate. The complainant had constructed the residential building 'Universal Garden No. 1' at Jogeshwari (w), Mumbai. The MMRDA owed leasehold plot admeasuring 6912 sq. mtr. The petitioners/accused are the allottees of the residential flats in the said building. Occupation certificate was issued on 21/2/2014. The flat purchasers were put in possession of the respective flats in the year 2014-15. A completion certificate came to be issued on 27/5/2015. It seems, disputes arose between the developer and the flat purchasers over the completion of the project in accordance with the terms of the contract between the developer and the purchasers. In the wake of the dispute, several allegations and counter allegations were made. The developer alleged that the accused Nos. 1 to 7 formed a body under the name and style of 'Universal Garden No. 1 Cooperative Housing Society' (proposed), illegally and in contravention of the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the governing rules. A false dispute was raised about the maintenance bills. The bills were allegedly fraudulently collected from of the office of complainant. The accused, in connivance with other fiat owners, illegally collected payment from the occupants of the fiats. Efforts were made to spread disharmony amongst occupants of the fiat and create a rift between the fiat purchasers and the developer.