No material to suggest Pankaj, Sameer Bhujbal intended to cheat flat buyers, says Mumbai court

The sessions court, while discharging food and civil supplies minister Chhagan Bhujbal’s son Pankaj and nephew Sameer, observed that from the material available on record it cannot be inferred that the accused wanted to cheat flat buyers. The hearing took place on September 8 but the order was made public on Wednesday.

The sessions court, while discharging food and civil supplies minister Chhagan Bhujbal’s son Pankaj and nephew Sameer, observed that from the material available on record it cannot be inferred that the accused wanted to cheat flat buyers. The hearing took place on September 8 but the order was made public on Wednesday.

A 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. Navi Mumbai police booked the accused for cheating, breach of trust and under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA). (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT Photo)

A 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. Navi Mumbai police booked the accused for cheating, breach of trust and under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA).

Additional Sessions judge HS Satbhai allowed the discharge application of Pankaj, Sameer, Rajesh Dharap and Satyen Kesarkar — directors of Devisha Infrastructure Private Limited.

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 witnesses. They also argued that to charge a person for cheating there has to be any intent, but 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 lawyers argued there was no intent to cheat the flat buyers and added that the project slowed as the MMRDA had cut its road and later the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had attached the land. They further informed the court that money of more than 200 flat buyers was returned.

After taking account of the materials made available on record and hearing the submissions, the court observed, “From the material of the charge sheet, prima facie it cannot be inferred that there was an intention of directors of Devisha Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to cheat the informant or any other flat purchasers the.”

Judge Satbhai further observed that there is no material to satisfy the offence of criminal conspiracy, since there was no misrepresentation to flat buyers.

“The provisions of criminal law cannot be invoked for breach of contract, when there has been a culpable intention absent on the part of the defaulting person. The lodging of FIR by the informant prima facie appears to be an attempt to resolve the civil dispute by giving it colour of criminal offence. No fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of accepting the booking amount from the customer is seen,” the court noted.