PREM CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr Marwadi, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shidne, learned APP for the respondents

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in brief, is that one Jahangir Kapadia was in service of Union Bank of India, Nepean Sea Road Branch, Mumbai and he had come in contact with the Chawala family. After retirement Chawala family offered him attractive interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the investments and therefore, said Jahangir Kapadia and his wife invested Rs. 16,10,000.00 with Chawala family. Some other relatives of Jahangir also deposited Rs.2,35,000.00 with Chawala family. All these deposits and investments were made from June, 1994 to October, 1997. Till October, 1997 they were paid interest on the investments. However, thereafter they stopped payment of interest and also avoided to repay the principal amount. Several demands were made but in vain. Finally, in October 2002 Jahangir and his wife approached Chawala family for repayment but they refused to repay the amount. Due to this, Jahangir was shocked and he suffered Paralytic attack and died on 3rd October 2002. Some time in 2006, complainant Jeroo, the wife of Jahangir Kapadia, lodged a complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate 18th Court. The learned Magistrate directed the police under Section 156(3) to investigate the case. This is how Crime No MECR 3/2006 cam to be registered by D.B. Marg Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 506(1) and 120-B of Indian Penal Code against the present applicant and 5 others from Chawala Family.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the facts stated above, it is clear that it is a civil dispute between the parties. The complainant and her husband had made certain deposits with Chawala family from June 1994 to October 1997. Thereafter Chawala family stopped the payments and they were avoiding the repayment of principal amount and finally in October 2002, they refused to make the payment. In spite of this, criminal complaint was filed some time in January or February 2006. From this, it is clear that for a number of years the complainant or her husband took no action.