Bombay HC quashes case against senior citizen booked for cheating

The accused, Mahendra Dholakia, allegedly cheated and coerced two brothers who owned a flat in the society to sell the flat to him at a lower rate on false pretext. The court held that as a magistrate inquiry was initiated in the matter in 2013, the complainant could not have lodged a second complaint in 2015, based on which the FIR and charge sheet were filed.

The Bombay high court (HC) recently quashed the first information report (FIR) and charge sheet filed against a 72-year-old south Mumbai resident, who was serving as the secretary of a society at Marine Drive, for alleged cognisable offences committed by him in 2013. The court held that as a magistrate inquiry was initiated in the matter in 2013, the complainant could not have lodged a second complaint in 2015, based on which the FIR and charge sheet were filed.

HT Image

The accused, Mahendra Dholakia, allegedly cheated and coerced two brothers who owned a flat in the society to sell the flat to him at a lower rate on false pretext.

A bench of justice SS Shinde and justice Manish Pitale, while hearing the petition seeking quashing of the FIR and charge sheet, was informed by advocate Sneha Singh that an FIR was filed against her client in March 2015 and he was booked under sections 193 (giving false evidence), 211 (wrongful institution of criminal proceedings), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

Singh submitted that the FIR was filed based on directions of the magistrate who took cognisance of the February 2015 complaint filed by Deepak Kriplani, under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Following this, the charge sheet was filed in 2016.

Singh then informed the court that in 2013 Kriplani had lodged a similar complaint with the magistrate, but as it was pending adjudication, the magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the second complaint. In light of these facts, she sought quashing of the FIR and charge sheet against Dholakia.

Kriplani brothers had come in possession of the said flat in 2010. However, as the share certificate was misplaced, Dholakia, who was the then secretary of the society, offered to buy the flat from them at lower rate. Kriplanis then lodged a complaint of cheating against Dholakia in 2013 before the magistrate.

However, the magistrate kept the inquiry pending as Kriplanis and Dholakia reached an understanding in 2014 and it was decided that Dholakia would pay a sum of ₹65 lakh for the flat. Thereafter in 2015, Kriplanis lodged the second complaint with the magistrate.

Advocate Subodh Desai, for Kriplanis, submitted that the two complaints were different and hence the petition by Dholakia for quashing the FIR and charge sheet was not maintainable.

After hearing the submissions, the court observed that as Kriplanis had not informed the magistrate of the first complaint and as the same was alive at the time of lodging of the second complaint, the second complaint and the action initiated against it could not be maintainable and hence quashed the FIR and charge sheet. The court, however, allowed Kriplanis to challenge the rejection of the 2013 complaint by the magistrate while the HC was hearing the petition by Dholakia.