RAHUL VASUDEV BHATT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application questions the legality of First Information Report bearing No. 69 of 2006 which came to be registered with Vile Parle Police Station on 22/2/2006. The offences mentioned in the report are under Ss. 406, 409, 420, 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking relief against continuation of the said criminal proceedings. It is their case that the allegations made in the report do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged and that the dispute, in substance, arises from a financial transaction relating to a loan and a flat. Therefore, according to them, the criminal machinery has been unnecessarily set in motion in a matter which is essentially of a civil nature. The Court is therefore required to examine the material placed on record and determine whether the continuation of the prosecution is justified in law.

(2.) The prosecution case, as reflected from the First Information Report and the documents relied upon, is that petitioner No. 2 had represented to the complainant institution, namely GIC, that he was in the process of purchasing a flat from petitioner No. 1. On the strength of this representation, GIC agreed to grant financial assistance. It is stated that relying upon such representation, GIC advanced a loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 to petitioner No. 1 for the purpose of the said transaction. In order to secure repayment of the loan amount, petitioner No. 2 issued two cheques of Rs.2,50,000.00 each. According to the complainant, these cheques were intended to cover the repayment liability arising from the loan granted by GIC. However, it is alleged that petitioner No. 2 did not honour the repayment obligations within the expected time. As a result of this default, GIC initiated steps for recovery of the dues and also sought to secure possession of the property which had been treated as security for the loan transaction.

(3.) The record further indicates that, according to GIC, petitioner No. 2 did not repay the outstanding amount despite the loan having been sanctioned and disbursed. Consequently, the complainant invoked the provisions of Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Proceedings under this provision are ordinarily taken by a secured creditor when a borrower defaults in repayment of the loan. During the course of such proceedings, it came to the notice of the complainant that the flat which had been mortgaged in favour of GIC was in possession of the family members of petitioner No. 2. This circumstance appears to have created suspicion in the mind of the complainant regarding the conduct of the petitioners. It is on this basis that the complainant approached the police authorities and lodged the present report, alleging commission of criminal offences relating to cheating, breach of trust and forgery.