Allowed

Uttamdas Warluji Wankhede v. Narayan Ramchandr Sorate and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2013WP/312/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court adjudged a criminal writ petition challenging an FIR regarding cheating over a flat transaction. The court observed the complaint lacked credibility and represented a conflicting theory to prior agreements. It held there was no criminality due to free consent and ordered quashing of the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR No.15 of 2012 and the prosecution's O.M.A. No.135 of 2012.

Uttamdas Warluji Wankhede Vs Narayan Ramchandr Sorate… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

vrd 1 WP312/13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.312 OF 2013

¶5

Mr Uttamdas Warluji Wankhede
v/s

¶6

Mr Narayan R. Sorate and anr.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr C.G. Gavnekar i/b Mr Pratap Singh for
Petitioner.

¶10

Ms Kokila Kalra for Respondent No.1.
Ms V.S. Mhaispurkar, APP for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶12

DATED : 8TH JULY 2013.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

1.Heard. The prosecution vide O.M.A. No.135
of 2012 for offence under sections 420, 406, 465,

¶15

467, 468, 471, 506 of IPC arising out of FIR No.15

¶16

of 2012 pending on the file of learned JMFC, Vashi,

¶17

Navi Mumbai is questioned by the writ petitioner.

¶18

2.The original complainant had applied to

¶19

MHADA Authorities for allotment of a flat under its
scheme. He succeeded in such allotment and

¶20

vrd 2 WP312/13

¶21

provisional letter for Flat No.305, 'A' Wing, MHADA
Building No.168, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai 400
089 was issued pursuant to the application bearing
No.167575 of the complainant.

¶22

3.According to the complainant, he has
allowed the writ petitioner, being known to each
other, for temporary stay for a period of three
months to accommodate study purpose of petitioner's
children. The second defence taken by the
complainant is since he was in dire need of money
for purchase of the flat, he received Rs.1,00,000/-
from the petitioner and has handed over original
acknowledgment of the application, original letter
of allotment, original receipts given by MHADA for
payment, for executing deed of mortgage by deposit
of title deeds. This is so demonstrated in the
notice dated 27th August 2009 sent through his
Advocate to the accused / petitioner. Prior
thereto, there was an affidavit dated 27th August
2009, consciously executed by the complainant
Narayan Sorte, indemnifying his volitional desire
to allot the flat in question to the writ

¶23

vrd 3 WP312/13

¶24

petitioner or Smt Meena, his wife.

¶25

4.The complaint petition before the learned

¶26

Magistrate is totally a summer-salt of the events
reflected in the notices, affidavit or in the
communication. A new theory is generated
particularly referred in paragraph 5 that the writ
petitioner was to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-

¶27

for repurchase of the flat and therefore in
February 2012, the complainant handed over
Rs.20,00,000/- to writ petitioner to be given to
MHADA Authorities. These averments, as stated
earlier, are not matching to what the complainant
desired earlier. That apart, one fails to
understand when the flat was already in the name of
the complainant, what made him for releasing
Rs.20,00,000/- or what made him to accept
Rs.20,00,000/- as paragraph 5 of the complaint

¶28

petition is to be read in proper tune.

¶29

5.The matter has a blend of several
litigation as S.C. Suit No.467 of 2011 is filed by
the wife of writ petitioner in which notice of

¶30

vrd 4 WP312/13

¶31

motion No.553 of 2012 was moved, temporary

¶32

injunction was granted to protect the occupation /
possession.

¶33

6.The above facts illustrate that there was

¶34

no criminality of the act of writ petitioner in
transaction with the complainant, whatever has

¶35

happened, it was with the understanding, free
consent of the complainant. The process calls for
interference, it is set aside. Writ petition is
allowed.

¶36

( K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)

Uttamdas Warluji Wankhede v. Narayan Ramchandr Sorate and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttamdas Warluji Wankhede v. Narayan Ramchandr Sorate and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yuvraj Sudhakar Chumbalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bapi Somnath Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra

Seema Jobanputra and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.