Mumbai: Booked 10 years ago, charged last month, case quashed this week

Mahesh Parekh, the businessman

On April 3, the Bombay High Court granted relief to Mahesh Parekh, a 79-year-old businessman from Ghatkopar West accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust to the tune of about Rs 7 crore. The case filed under Indian Penal Code Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) was registered against Parekh a decade ago at the Marine Drive police station.

Parekh was arrested and later released on bail. As the valuation of the offence was above Rs 1 crore, the case was being investigated by the Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Branch. The charge sheet was filed only last month before the metropolitan magistrate, 47th court, Esplanade. The accused moved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the high court seeking the quashing of the FIR.

The high court held that prosecuting the accused would be an abuse of process of law. Representation pic

In their seven-page order, the division bench of Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice M M Sathaye held that prosecuting the accused would be an abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR, criminal proceedings and the trial.

Also Read: Omicron variant XBB 1.16: Experts call for dynamic genome sequencing

The complaint

According to the FIR, dated December 4, 2012, respondent no. 2 (Pramod Lath) a businessman running a company called New World Resources was engaged in the business of selling polymer raw material, plastic etc. It is alleged that from February to September 2012, Lath supplied the goods to the petitioner's (Parekh) company Shreeji Trade Corporation from a godown at Bhiwandi. The FIR states that the petitioner purchased raw material from time to time and that till May 2012, the petitioner paid the consideration for the raw material he had purchased.

It is, however, alleged that for the purchase of raw material from May to September 2012, the petitioner issued cheques; however, when they were deposited in the bank, the payment did not realise because the petitioner had issued stop-payment instructions. It is further alleged that when asked about the amount due, the petitioner gave evasive answers and avoided payment. The FIR alleges that Rs 6,55,42,520 in total was recoverable from the petitioner and since he had avoided answering and paying the amount, the petitioner had cheated respondent no. 2 and sold the raw material purchased from the latter the market to third-party purchasers and used the amount for himself.

The argument

Advocate Mubin Solkar, who represented Parekh, relied on several documents, including the FIR, an email sent by Parekh and statements recorded during the course of the investigation. He contended before the high court that the dispute was of a civil nature relating to alleged non-payment for goods delivered and the basic ingredients of the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust were not made out.

Mahesh Parekh, businessman (right) Advocate Mubin Solkar

He further contended that the first informant had converted a purely commercial dispute by giving it a criminal colour and got a false FIR registered, which was an abuse of the process of law and misuse of police machinery. K V Saste, additional public prosecutor, who appeared for the state (respondent no. 1), pointed out material gathered during the investigation.

Advocate Pranav Badheka, counsel for respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the grant of any relief in favour of the petitioner. He submitted that the material gathered against the petitioner was sufficient for him to face trial. The court, in its order, however, observed that the basic ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust were lacking and it was a dispute of a civil nature.

‘Justice was not denied'

"Justice delayed, but not denied," said Parekh, reacting to the order. He added, "It is a good judgment; it has restored my faith in the judiciary and judicial system. I thank my counsel and advocates who appeared for me. The court, through the lens of justice, could see the malicious intent behind registering the FIR against me."

What next

Parekh added, "I suffered, and so did my family and business. It was a nightmare to restore public and community faith in my family and me. Our business is run on word of mouth and this frivolous case had caused tremendous irreparable damage to my reputation and image within the community and business circuit." He said "The Bombay High Court verdict has helped my family and me to face them all again."

Counsel speak

Solkar told mid-day, "It took my client more than a decade to prove his innocence, which for a 79-year-old is an unduly long period. But the high court order quashing the FIR was undoubtedly worth the wait." He added, "Such orders not only help reaffirm the respect for the court of law in the minds of litigants but also help restore the common man's faith in our justice dispensation system."

2012
Year FIR was filed against Parekh