16 years on, MPID court orders FIR against builder, promoters over undelivered flats

The court held that pending proceedings before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) cannot prevent criminal action under the MPID Act, while directing the police to register FIRs against the company and its promoters Ajitkumar Jain and Navinkumar Jain

MUMBAI: Sixteen years after two sets of homebuyers booked flats in a Govandi housing project and allegedly paid the builder ₹4.67 crore, a special Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) court has ordered the Govandi police to register FIRs against Mishal Constructions Pvt Ltd and its directors/promoters for allegedly failing to hand over possession of the flats or refund their money.

16 years on, MPID court orders FIR against builder, promoters over undelivered flats

The court’s orders, passed on Tuesday by designated judge Vikram R Jagdale, also rejected the police’s closure reports. It held that pending proceedings before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) cannot prevent criminal action under the MPID Act, while directing the police to register FIRs against the company and its promoters Ajitkumar Jain and Navinkumar Jain.

In the first case, Chetan Mehta and Vaishali Mehta said they booked two flats in Maitri Vijay Co-operative Housing Society in October, 2010. They alleged that the builder promised possession by 2016 and that they paid ₹3 crore for the flats.

But construction stopped in 2016, they told the court. Despite repeated follow-ups, the builder neither handed over possession nor refunded their money, they alleged.

The complaints had been pending since 2023. In October 2024, the court directed the Govandi police to conduct preliminary inquiries and register FIRs if the allegations were found to be well-founded.

Subsequently, the police filed ‘C’ summary reports, citing the buyers’ pending proceedings before RERA. The police reasoned that because of restrictions under RERA, a criminal court could not take cognisance of the allegations unless there was a complaint from the regulatory authority or its authorised representative.

The MPID court disagreed.

It held that RERA proceedings and criminal proceedings under the MPID Act operate in different spheres. “The provisions of RERA Act and MPID Act will operate in a different domain,” the court said, adding that once allegations disclose a cognisable offence, the police are required to register an FIR and investigate.

The judge also held that approaching RERA did not prevent the homebuyers from seeking criminal investigation. Relying on the MPID Act’s overriding provision, the court said its provisions takes precedence where there was conflict with other laws.

In the Mehta case, the judge criticised the police for not registering an FIR because of the RERA proceedings. The court described the police’s interpretation as a “totally erroneous and misconceived proposition of law” and said the allegations should have been investigated.

The court reached the same conclusion in the Sidharthan case, rejecting the police report and ordering an FIR against the builder and its two promoters.

The police have now been directed to investigate both cases and submit their reports to the court within a month.