Mumbai court relief for Pankaj, Sameer Bhujbal in 2015 case

A special sessions judge discharged Pankaj Bhujbal, son of cabinet minister Chhagan Bhujbal, nephew Sameer Bhujbal booked in a case of cheating, breach of trust and under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) in 2015

A special sessions judge on Wednesday discharged Pankaj Bhujbal, son of cabinet minister Chhagan Bhujbal, nephew Sameer Bhujbal and two other directors of Devisha Infrastructure Private Limited — Rajesh Dharap and Satyan Kesarkar — who were booked by the Navi Mumbai Police for cheating, breach of trust and under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA). The case was registered against the Bhujbals and others in 2015 on a complaint of a Chembur resident who claimed that the company had planned to sell 2,344 flats and had collected ₹44 crores but had not developed the project.

(Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Additional session’s judge HS Satbhai allowed the discharge application of all four persons, under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for discharge.

The complaint was registered on June 13, 2015, by one Yunus Shaikh. Sameer and Kesarkar appeared when summons were issued against them and were granted bail immediately.

The state claimed that the four applicants who have applied for discharge are directors of Devisha Infrastructure Private Limited (DIPL). The applicants along with others hatched a conspiracy and projected that they will develop project Hexworld on 25-acres of land in Kharghar. However, they were fully aware that DIPL had no lands in its name, no construction permission and no possession of the land. They misrepresented to potential flat buyers by concealing the above facts with a view to cheat them and sold 2,344 flats and collected ₹44.04 crores from buyers. The possession of the flats was delayed, the construction has been completed only up to the plinth, and till 2011 DIPL had no permission to undertake any constructions. The sale proceeds were deposited in a designated account, however, the same was not used for construction and was siphoned off for personal use of the applicants. Neither the booking amount was refunded nor the flat was handed over to the flat purchasers. The charge sheet was filed in the matter on February 25, 2016.

The Bhujbals and the other two applicants were represented by advocate Sajal Yadav and Sudarshan Khawase, who argued that Alibag magistrate court, after going through the documents, had said there is no prima facie evidence to infer that since the date when the accused’s company started receiving booking amount, there was an intention on the part of the accused to cheat the informants and the witnesses. The court had also said that a case is not made out against the accused under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for cheating. To charge a person for cheating there has to be any intent in this case the directors had no fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. The inability of fulfilling contractual obligations due to reasons beyond the control without culpable intent is not an offence.

The court after hearing both the parties on Wednesday discharged the four applicants and posted the matter on September 20 for further hearing.