Sessions Court Revives Decade-Old Rs 1.46 Crore Fraud Case After Procedural Flaw
A Mumbai sessions court has set aside a magistrate's order that dismissed a cheating complaint dating back over a decade, involving an alleged fraud of more than Rs 1.46 crore. The court found that the lower court's decision was flawed due to procedural irregularities, including shifting court dates without notifying the complainant.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated in 2013 when a businessman filed a complaint alleging that Rajesh and Kashmira Parekh induced him to invest Rs 1.46 crore in a specific healthcare venture. The duo was accused of diverting the funds into a medical export company and failing to provide any returns on the investment.
Following the original complainant's death in 2017, his wife, Vishalakshi Shetty, was substituted as the legal heir to pursue the case. The police later filed a 'C' Summary report, suggesting the matter was civil rather than criminal in nature.
Procedural Irregularities Uncovered
In November 2024, Shetty moved the sessions court after a magistrate's court accepted the police closure report in December 2023. She pointed out a significant discrepancy in court records: a scheduled hearing date in January 2024 was allegedly struck out and advanced to December 2023 without her knowledge or that of her advocate.
Additional Sessions Judge M Mohiuddin MA emphasized that the magistrate's decision to accept the closure report was passed "behind the back of the complainant" after the court dates were shifted without proper notice. The judge stated, "It is true that the High Court directed an expeditious hearing, but this does not mean that after giving a date to the complainant, the case can be decided behind her back before that date."
Court's Ruling and Directions
The sessions court held that the magistrate failed to pass an order on merit after providing opportunities to both sides. Judge Mohiuddin remarked, "Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order is not just legal and proper; it requires interference."
From the records, it was clear that initially, the complainant's advocate was shown as present, and a date was given for January 13, 2024. Subsequently, the accused and their advocate appeared, filed an application, and presented a copy of a High Court order for an expeditious hearing. This led to the date being changed without notice to Shetty and her legal representative.
The court further stressed that while higher courts had directed a speedy trial, this did not authorize the dismissal of the case without a fair hearing. Consequently, the sessions court has restored the complaint to its original stage.
Next Steps in the Legal Process
The magistrate has now been directed to reconsider the closure proceedings and decide the matter on its merits. Both parties must be given a proper opportunity to be heard, in alignment with previous High Court directives for a speedy resolution.
This ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness in judicial processes, ensuring that all parties have a chance to present their case before any dismissal or closure.
