Naveen Saraff vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that having regard to the peculiar facts, the Police ought to have invoked the provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, 1999 as well as Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

1/4

¶16

Shivgan

¶17

31-Wp-6574-2024.doc

¶18

Learned APP has filed an affidavit of Shri Vikas Survase,

¶19

Assistant Police Inspector, N. M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai dated 9^th September 2024.

¶20

Perused the Petition. It appears that as the Petitioner and his wife were in search of a property i.e. residential unit to be purchased by them and their relatives in Mumbai city, as and by way of investments, they learnt through their relative, Aditya Saraf, about the project of “M/s. Tattva and Mittal Life Spaces Private Ltd.”, by name “Bombay-XI”. It is the Petitioner’s case that after discussing, they decided to invest in the said project. Pursuant thereto, allotment letters were issued to the Petitioner and others. One of such allotment letter is at Page 44 of the Petition. The said letter is an allotment letter of a flat on a particular floor in the Real Estate Project known as “Bombay XI”. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had filed a complaint before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (‘MahaRERA’), Mumbai and had sought a direction to the developers to execute sale agreement in his favour and also other ancillary reliefs were sought. The MahaRERA allowed the said complaint and directed the complainant therein to pay stamp duty amount for execution of the

2/4

Shivgan

31-Wp-6574-2024.doc

agreement for sale within 15 days and directed the promoter to execute the registered agreement for sale within a period of further 30 days from the date of payment of the stamp duty.

¶25

At this stage, Dr. Warunjikar states that the said order passed by the MahaRERA cannot be executed since the developer/promoter had sold the flats in question to third party and in fact, even his registration with MahaRERA has been cancelled.

¶26

Be that as it may, during the pendency of the aforesaid Petition, the Police registered an FIR on the basis of Petitioner’s complaint dated 5^th June 2023 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and provision of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) Act.

¶27

From the affidavit filed by Mr. Vikas Survase, API attached to N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai, it appears that the investigation does not reveal any offence punishable under the MPID Act and therefore, the said provisions are not invoked. Although in the

3/4

Shivgan

31-Wp-6574-2024.doc

affidavit, reasons for not invoking Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC are given, learned APP fairly states that if during the course of investigation, the said sections are made out, the Police will incorporate the same in the charge-sheet. Learned APP further states that investigation will be conducted fairly, impartially and will be taken to its logical end expeditiously. Considering that the FIR is registered on 27^th April 2024, we expect the Police to complete the investigation and file charge-sheet expeditiously. Learned APP at this stage states that the charge-sheet will be filed within eight weeks from today. Statement accepted.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives for further consideration in the Petition.

¶33

Petition stands disposed of.

¶34

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2025.02.14 17:40:00 +0530

¶36

4/4

¶37

Shivgan

Naveen Saraff v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Saraff v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sajid Ur Rehman Siddique vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pratap Maruti Shinde and Anr. vs the State of Maharshtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

The Solapur District Homeopathic Doctors Association vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary Dept. of Medical Eucation and Ors.

Sanjay Satappa Metkar vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Child in Conflict With Law through Her Father vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandeep Jawahar Shah vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.