(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. In spite of notice being served, the opposite party no.2 did not chose to appear in this case.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is the case of the complainant that when the Company known as 'Godrej Properties Limited' came forward with announcement that it will be constructing flats under the name of 'River Scapes' at Godrej Hill. Complainant's mother offered to purchase one flat (2 BHK) on a consideration amount agreed upon. Thereafter the part payments were made. Even on passing off so many years when possession of flat was not given, legal notice was given which was replied with wherein it was stated that in anticipation of receiving clarification from the company flats were booked. At the same time, an offer was made to have two flats (1 BHK each) which proposal was accepted by the complainant. After completion of the flats, the complainant was put to possession of those two flats. In spite of that, a complaint was lodged which was registered as Complaint Case No.2159 of 2010 under Sections 406, 420 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the complainant's mother had booked one 2 BHK flat which had never been constructed and instead of that, possession of 2 flats (each being 1 BHK) were given. Upon it, cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 24.8.2011.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accepting the entire allegation to be true, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code as the petitioners have not been alleged to have dishonestly misappropriated any property or converted to its own house.