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

On April 3 the Bombay High Court granted relief to Mahesh Parekh a 79yearold 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 stationParekh 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 FIRThe high court held that prosecuting the accused would be an abuse of process of law Representation picIn their sevenpage 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 trialAlso Read Omicron variant XBB 116 Experts call for dynamic genome sequencingThe complaintAccording 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 petitionerrsquos 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 purchasedIt 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 stoppayment 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 65542520 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 thirdparty purchasers and used the amount for himselfThe argumentAdvocate 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 nonpayment for goods delivered and the basic ingredients of the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust were not made outMahesh Parekh businessman right Advocate Mubin SolkarHe 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 investigationAdvocate 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 naturelsquoJustice was not deniedrsquoldquoJustice delayed but not deniedrdquo said Parekh reacting to the order He added ldquoIt 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 merdquoWhat nextParekh added ldquoI 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 circuitrdquo He said ldquoThe Bombay High Court verdict has helped my family and me to face them all againrdquoCounsel speakSolkar told midday ldquoIt took my client more than a decade to prove his innocence which for a 79yearold is an unduly long period But the high court order quashing the FIR was undoubtedly worth the waitrdquo He added ldquoSuch orders not only help reaffirm the respect for the court of law in the minds of litigants but also help restore the common manrsquos faith in our justice dispensation systemrdquo2012Year FIR was filed against Parekh