Raju Sidhya Sulire v. The State Of Maharashtra
1/11 4 ABA-1910-18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Raju Sidhya Sulire Respondent INTERIM APPLICATION NO.222 OF 2022 Pingalprasad Pancham Gautam & Anr.
Applicants The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Respondents INTERIM APPLICATION NO.307 OF 2022 Khushboo Govind Sharma The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Respondents
2/11 4 ABA-1910-18.doc CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1034 OF 2019 Pradip Mukherji The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Respondents CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.559 OF 2019 Mukesh Mehta & Ors.
Applicants Respondents CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1009 OF 2019 Rakesh Yadav The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Respondents
3/11 4 ABA-1910-18.doc INTERIM APPLICATION NO.527 OF 2020 Charu Ranjit Sukhija Respondents INTERIM APPLICATION NO.533 OF 2020 Daman Singh Bist The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Respondents INTERIM APPLICATION NO.532 OF 2020 Kamal T. Rawal The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Respondents
4/11 4 ABA-1910-18.doc INTERIM APPLICATION NO.416 OF 2019 Ali Asgar N Modi Respondent INTERIM APPLICATION NO.934 OF 2019 Imran Suleman Khan Respondent INTERIM APPLICATION NO.932 OF 2019 Sachin Digambar Ekawade Respondent
5/11 4 ABA-1910-18.doc INTERIM APPLICATION NO.933 OF 2019 Sameer Abdul Rehman Kachhi Respondent CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.52 OF 2019 Abdul Hamid Peer Mohd. Shaikh The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Respondents CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1300 OF 2018 Sidhesh Pai & Ors.
Applicants The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Respondents
6/11 4 ABA-1910-18.doc CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.109 OF 2019 Shameem Ahemed Shaikh Respondent CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1405 OF 2019 Fehmida Shaukat Shaikh & Ors.
Applicants The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Respondents ...
Mr.Raju D. Suryawanshi for the Applicant.
Mr.Samadhan Kashid i/b Mr.Makrand Kale for the Intervenor in IA/932/19, IA/933/19 and IA/934/19.
Mr.Aditya Mithe with Mr.Sachin Agawane for the Intervenor in APPP/1300/18.
Mr.C.K.Thakkar for the Intervenor in APPP/559/19. Mr.Mikdad Aziz Zummenwala for the Intervenor in IA/416/19. Ms.Anamika Malhotra, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. Ms.Sandhya S. Pawar, PSI, EOW, Mira Road, present. Mr.M.H.Choudhary with Mr.Hafeez Coatwala i/b Sumaira Legal Association for the Original Complainant.
7/11 4 ABA-1910-18.doc CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 20th JUNE, 2022 P.C:- 1.
By an order dated 08/08/2019, this Court, while continuing the ad-interim relief in favour of the applicant, recorded certain conditions, which would bind him. These conditions were based on the statement of the applicant, given to this Court in form of an undertaking, including certain oral statements, being made on instructions of the applicant, who was present in the Court. Thereafter, time and again, the applicant continued to fle several affdavits-cumundertakings, assuring the Court that he would be governed by the said undertakings.
In the affdavit dated 28/11/2018, he specifcally gave the name of the four fat purchasers and assured that the amount would be paid to them on or before the dates, which were mentioned in the affdavit. He also assured that as far as the investor Mr.Mukesh Mehta is concerned, he would repay the amount alongwith interest. His further affdavit dated 25/06/2019 specifcally assure the Court that he wish to honour his commitment and settle the matter with Mr.Mukesh Mehta and Ms.Komal Punjabi by undertaking that he shall
8/11 4 ABA-1910-18.doc handover the peaceful and vacant possession, free from all encumbrances and also execute all necessary documents to that effect. In one more affdavit-cum-undertaking dated 25/06/2019, he undertook that he shall hand over possession of the fats to the respective fat purchasers within 18 months and fled list of the customers alongwith the said affdavit. Several affdavits of the same date, specifcally mention allotment of fats to distinct investors and execution of necessary documents in their favour within a period stipulated.
2.
On 17/07/2019, the applicant once again fled a detailed affdavit, running into 32 pages, giving details of settlement against various customers by specifcally naming them with reference to their numbers in the investors' list. Needless to state that in view of these undertakings by the applicant, with an understanding that they shall be abided by, the interim relief in favour of the applicant was continued from time to time. At some point of time and to be precise on 22/01/2020, he also placed on record consent terms drawn between himself and some of the investors.
3.
The learned A.P.P. makes a categorical statement there is an out and out failure on part of the applicant to abide by the
9/11 4 ABA-1910-18.doc undertakings given to this Court. For instance, she state that the fat which was undertaken to be allotted to Mukesh Mehta and Kiran Mehta i.e. fat No.105 in M.B.Tower, is now in fact sold to one Hina Rajesh Modi and, according to her, there is a clear breach of the undertaking. Further, the learned counsel for the Association of Flat Purchasers in M.B.Tower also makes a grievance that several commitments made before this Court in form of undertakings, have not been honoured by the applicant.
The learned counsel appearing for Mr.Mukesh Mehta, intervenor/one of the investors, states that though the applicant has undertaken to make the payment, the cheques issued came to be dishonoured.
4.
It can thus be seen that the applicant has failed to abide by the undertakings and the assurances given to this Court. The learned counsel Mr.Suryawanshi appearing for the applicant do not run away from the violation of the undertakings, but his only concern is, if the applicant is taken into custody, the unfnished work cannot be fnished and, ultimately, the fat purchasers would be deprived of the fats. The concern of Mr.Suryawanshi may be a real one, but it is also to be kept in mind that time and again, this Court has
10/11 4 ABA-1910-18.doc continued the protection in favour of the applicant only on the undertakings given by him and this saga has continued, since 2018. Let an end be put to it now, since it is apparent that the applicant had clearly fouted the orders of this Court and has no intention to abide by the undertaking and has taken advantage of the orders, releasing him on bail in anticipation of his arrest, merely on the assurance given by him that he is likely to adhere to his undertaking and settle with all the investors. Now, if the investors themselves are making grievance that there is no compliance of the undertakings, subject to which he was released on bail, his protection deserves to be withdrawn.
5.
In any case, since the construction activity was undertaken under the aegis of M/s.Om Mandar Realtors, M/s.Mandar Realtors as well other sister concerns in which the applicant is partner, the project shall be taken ahead by the other partners and the arrest of the applicant in the crime, for breach of undertaking, will not put any inconvenience to the investors.
6.
In the wake of the above observations, looking to the conduct of the applicant and, since, the applicant faces serious accusations under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 read
11/11 4 ABA-1910-18.doc with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, the interim protection granted in favour of the applicant on 18/09/2018 stands is recalled.
The application fled by the applicant is dismissed. The Investigating Offcer is at liberty to take him into custody. 7.
In view of disposal of the application, interim applications do not survive and stand disposed off. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)