The special court has refused to grant prearrest bail to partners of Ravi Developers and its two employees for allegedly duping eight investors to the tune of ₹26 crore. The special MPID court at Thane rejected the plea observing that the accused appear to have prima facie committed the alleged offences. 

Jayesh Tokershi Shah, Ketan Tokershi Shah and Sonal Jayesh Shah, who are partners in Ravi Developers, had approached the court, along with two employees, Ravindra Girdhari Rana and Machindra Bapu Samrut, seeking prearrest in a case registered against them at the Kashimira station in Thane. Based on a complaint by one Ajendra Manoharrao Joshi, a complaint was registered for cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery under the Indian Penal Code and sections of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment Act, 1999) [MPID Act] and the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 [MOFA]. 

The accused signed the flat agreement in 2020

According to the complaint, in 2020, Joshi booked a flat in the Gaurav Aster building on Mira Road, and after signing an agreement with the accused, he paid a consideration of ₹46.10 lakh. The commencement certificate (CC) dated March 30, 2019, granted by the municipal corporation, was cancelled by a letter dated June 17, 2019. 

Municipal authorities advised all officials not to register any paperwork

Within a week, the municipal corporation informed the deputy district registrar to inform all the officers under his jurisdiction about the cancellation of CC and directed them not to register any document. 

Despite this, the accused cheated Joshi and entered into an agreement to sell a flat and accepted the money. Since Joshi did not receive possession of a flat or his money, he lodged an FIR. 

The urban land minister had directed the civic body to issue CC

Their advocate, Poonam Jadhav-Hande, submitted that the dispute is civil in nature and was wrongly given the colour of a criminal case. However, she submitted that the urban land minister had directed the civic body to issue CC. She claimed that the accused had no intention to cheat anyone. 

Special public prosecutor VR Chandane and advocate Kunal Jhafor, intervenor, opposed the plea, contending that the accused had criminal antecedents. Chandane submitted that despite the municipal corporation cancelling the CC, the accused executed the agreement in favour of the purchasers and accepted the money. Also, construction was undertaken beyond the permission granted. This clearly shows an intention to cheat the investors. 

In-custody interrogation is needed, said SPP

The SPP said that their custodial interrogation is needed for a thorough investigation of the crime, including an investigation regarding the utilisation of money by investors. The court noted that the accused accepted money from the investors despite the CC having been cancelled. 

“Things do not stop here. Initially, permission was granted for the construction of 10 floors. However, illegal construction of additional floors was made by the accused.” The judge also noted that the complainant and seven persons were defrauded to the tune of ₹3,95,61,216. All flats are sold to 76 purchasers, and therefore, the defrauded amount would come to around ₹26 crore. The court said that the accused were rightly booked under the MPID. 

“It is correct that the investors made an investment in purchasing flats and not in a finance scheme. However, in the agreements, it is stated that if the accused fails to deliver possession in time, then they will pay monthly interest to purchasers. It would bring the case within the preview of the MPID Act. As per Section 3 of the MPID Act, even employees of financial institutions are liable for the offence,” it added. 

“Accused appear to have prima facie committed the alleged offences. Looking at the seriousness of offence and requirement of custodial interrogation, to my mind, this is not a fit case in which benefit of anticipatory bail is to be granted,” the court noted.