DAMJI RAGHAVJI SHAH Vs. SARITA MAHESHKUMAR GORADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed for quashing and setting aside the process issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli, Bombay in Case No.80/s of 1984 on the ground that the complaint does not disclose, any offence punishable under Section 420 of the I. P. c

(2.) IN the complaint, it has been averred in paragraphs 2 and 4 as under :- "2.By an agreement for sale dated 29th June 1982 entered into between my master Smt. Sarita M. Garodia of the one part and accused as owner/proprietor of M/s. D. R. Enterprises of the other part, the accused sold on ownership basis to Smt. Sarita M. Garodia a shop No.8 on the ground floor of the building Laxmi Shopping Center, 'b' Building, on Plot No.15, T. P. S. II, Ghatkopar, Bombay 400 086 for the price and on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The total price of shop No.8 was Rs. 2,40,000/- was to be paid to the accused against the possession and the balance of Rs. 1,000/- was to be paid to the accused on his providing various facilities like separate electricity meter in our name and other facilities. We have paid to the accused till today a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- for which the accused has passed on the necessary receipt but the balance of Rs. 1,000/- has not been paid to them as he has not provided the separate electricity meter in our names. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the said agreement dated 29.6.1982 and the receipt for payment of the aforesaid amount. 4.After handing over possession of the said shop No.8 by the accused to us and on actual measurement of the area of the said shop by us we found that the area of the said shop no. 8 was less or deficient by 30 sq. ft. than that of the area of the shop agreed to be sold by the accused to us as per the approved and/or sanctioned plan of the B. M. C. plan and copy of which was given to us by the accused before the execution of the agreement dated 29.6.1982. Thereafter, we approached the accused and he agreed to refund to us a sum of Rs. 18,305/- being the value of the said 30 sq. ft. short area but the accused did not pay the said amount to us and as such we gave a notice calling upon the accused to refund the said amount of Rs. 18,305/- but the accused has not replied to the said notice and also refunded or returned the said amount to us till now. "