AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the present Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (now Section 528 of BNSS), the Applicant seeks to quash and set aside CC No. 1277/PW/2007 instituted by Respondent No.4 before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra, Mumbai and Criminal Case bearing No. 212/SW/2014 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra against the Applicant.
Heard Mr. Surel Shah, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent - State and Mr. Bhomesh Bellam for Respondent No.4.
The case of the Original Complainant/Respondent No.4 as alleged is as under:
3.1) Respondent No.4 is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of immovable properties. In August 2002, Respondent No.4 through Imla Malik of Kamruddin Mukkadam Chawl, purchased land admeasuring 1,567.97 square mtrs. situated at C.T.S. No. 63 and 64, Kasturba cross Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai. According to Respondent No.4, the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 had executed a Development Agreement for redevelopment of three chawls including Abdul Mukkadam Chawl.
3.2) On 6th September 2002, Respondent No.4 along with the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3, formed a partnership by the name of M/s. Amber Enterprises. The partnership deed was executed on 6th September 2002 (Deed of 2002). Under the deed of 2002, Respondent No.4 was entitled to 50% of the profits/loss arising from the development in respect of C.T.S. No. 64. The remaining 50% of profit or loss was to be shared between the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3. In September 2002, an application was made on behalf of M/s. Amber Enterprises before the Registrar of Firms for registration of the partnership firm. On the application being rejected, a revised Application was submitted through the Chartered Accountant, Mr. Jignesh Shah. That, for some reason the firm remained to be registered.
3.3) On 18th January 2003, M/s. Amber Enterprises entered into an agreement with 39 tenants in respect of the redevelopment project situated at CTS No. 64 situated at 7, Kasturba Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai. That, the Applicant herein was appointed as an Architect for the said redevelopment project. That, it was through the Applicant that the scheme was submitted to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The Deputy Collector approved Annexure-2.
3.4) On 26th March 2004, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority issued a Letter of Intent in favour of M/s. Amber Enterprises (firm as of 2002) which consisted of four partners including Respondent No.4.
3.5) On 31st March 2004, the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 with malafide and fraudulent intentions registered a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Amber Enterprises (firm of 2004). The address of the partnership firm was registered as 7, Tare Compound, behind Krishna Hotel, Dahisar (East), Mumbai. This was the same address as that of the firm of 2002 in which Respondent No.4 was a partner. In the said partnership firm of 2004, Respondent No.4 was deliberately excluded as a partner by the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3.
3.6) By letter dated 14th October 2004, Respondent No.4 through his Advocates informed the Applicant that, there were some ongoing disputes and difference of opinion between the partners and that, three partners i.e. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 did not recognize him as a partner. That, the other partners may approach the Applicant, as also the Chartered Accountant of Respondent No.4, to obtain the No Objection Certificate. The Applicant was requested not to entertain Accused Nos. 1 to 3. The Applicant was requested not to issue his NOC in favour of any Architect unless and until Respondent No.4 gave his consent in writing. The Applicant was requested not to submit any plans to the SRA for approval.
3.7) Respondent No.4 filed a private complaint being CC/1277/PW/2007 before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra, seeking directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 had forged and fabricated the partnership deed dated 31st March 2004. Pursuant to the Order dated 6th June 2007 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra, MECR No. 1 of 2007 came to be registered in the year 2007 against the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and present Applicant.
3.8) The Kherwadi Police undertook investigation and the final report was filed under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, on 4th October 2011. Based on the letter dated 8th April 2013 issued by Respondent No.4, the investigation was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing, and MECR No. 1 of 2007 was transferred and renumbered as MECR No. 8 of 2013. On 30th August 2014, EOW filed chargesheet in MECR No.8/13.
3.9) Respondent No.4 then registered a second private complaint bearing No. CC/212/SW/14, before the 32nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra. In the said complaint, there is no allegation made against the present Applicant and his name is only mentioned as an Architect of the firm.
3.10) On 17th October 2014, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an Order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing investigation.
3.11) On 29th October 2014, Nirmal Nagar Police Station filed a final chargesheet in MECR No. 12 of 2014, stating that EOW had already filed chargesheet in MECR No. 8 of 2013 and CC/212/SW/2014 against all the Accused, including the Applicant. The chargesheet filed by EOW in MECR No. 8 of 2013 has been accepted as the final report.
Mr. Surel Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that: -
4.1) The only allegation against the Applicant is that vide letter dated 3rd February 2011, the Applicant despite of being informed of the dispute raised by Respondent No.4 with the other partners, i.e. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 forwarded partnership deed of 2004 to the Executive Engineer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority. That, said partnership deed is alleged to be forged/fabricated.
4.2) That, the letter by which Respondent No.4 put the Applicant to notice is dated 14th October 2004 and after a period of 7 years, in or around 2011, the Applicant in his professional capacity as an Architect/license holder submitted a copy of the partnership deed of 2004 to the SRA as per the procedure and requirement of law.
4.3) The Applicant has acted only in his professional capacity. That, it is not the allegation of Respondent No.4 that, the Applicant is the author of the alleged fabricated partnership deed of 2004 or that the Applicant is a beneficiary under the said partnership deed of 2004. It is also not the case of Respondent No.4 that, the Applicant gained financially or otherwise from the alleged fabricated partnership deed. The Applicant has acted only in his professional capacity and submitted the documents as per the procedure.
4.4) The complaint/disputes are inter se disputes between Respondent No.4 and original Accused Nos. 1 to 3, who are the partners. Respondent No.4 had challenged the rights of the Accused No. 1 to 3 by filing an application before the High Power Committee which came to be dismissed in the year 2011. Respondent No.4 filed a Writ Petition before this Court, which was also withdrawn by order dated 7th February 2012. Thereafter, a suit before the City Civil Court at Bombay was filed in the year 2013, which was subsequently withdrawn.
4.5) The permissions and approvals were granted by the SRA and in accordance with the sanctioned plans, the applicable provisions of law and the procedure prescribed in respect thereof. That, as far as the Applicant is concerned, there is no allegation of forgery or any act of making a false document.
4.6) The Applicant merely submitted documents as required by the SRA. That, the deed of 2002 i.e. partnership deed dated 6th September 2002 was not registered. The registered partnership deed dated 31st March 2004 was submitted before the SRA in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The constitution and composition of the partnership firm are matters inter se between the partners, with which the Applicant had no concern in his professional capacity.
4.7) The Applicant has not benefited directly or otherwise except his professional fees from the said project. Even otherwise there is no allegation in that regard. The professional engagement and performance of his duties as a professional cannot be a ground of initiating and continuing criminal prosecutions against the Applicant. There is no material or even allegation to show any participation of the Applicant in the alleged conspiracy or cheating or the offence of the forgery.
4.8) Learned Advocate appearing for the Applicants relied upon the paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar and Another Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 268 to submit that a mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case, and that there is a distinction between the offence of cheating and a mere breach of contractual obligations. Every breach of contract would not give rise to the offence of cheating. It is required to be shown that the Accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.
Mr. Bhomesh Bellam, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.4 submitted that: -
5.1) On 09th February 2004, the SRA had issued Annexure-3 in the name of the partnership firm, relying upon the deed of 2002. The Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 26th March 2004 was issued by SRA was also based on the deed of 2002 i.e. partnership deed dated 6th September 2002. On 31st March 2004, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 had registered a partnership firm with the same name, deliberately and with dishonest intentions to exclude Respondent No.4 from the said new partnership firm. The address of both the firms is the same. That, though the second firm is registered in March 2004, the effective date for its registration is deemed to be taken as 6th September 2002. By the said facts, the intention of Accused Nos. 1 to 3, to cheat the Respondent No.4 was clear. The Applicant was aware of all the facts as he had submitted to the SRA the deed of 2002 under his signature as a certified true copy.
5.2) Therefore, on 14th October 2004, a notice was sent to the Applicant informing him of the disputes and calling upon him not to proceed without the consent of Respondent No.4. That, despite having received the notice, the Applicant did not reply to the same. That, on 26th April 2006, the LOI dated 26th March 2004 (issued in the 1st firm of 2002) was cancelled and a revised LOI was issued without the consent of Respondent No.4.
5.3) On 16th July 2010, SRA informed Respondent No.4 that they did not have a copy of the registered partnership deed. Respondent No.4 had approached the High Power Committee pointing out the non-compliance of Clause 42 of the LOI. That, the registered partnership deed was submitted to the SRA by the Applicant on 3rd February 2011 and approval was sought. Though the Applicant was acting in his professional capacity, by his conduct he was part of the deception, cheating and fraud which was practiced by the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 on Respondent No.4.
5.4) The Applicant had knowledge of the fraud committed and the wrongful loss caused to Respondent No.4 and/or was aware of the wrongdoing. Despite receiving notice dated 14th October 2004, having knowledge of the fraud and inter se disputes between the parties, the Applicant proceeded to submit the documents, i.e. deed of 2004 due to which the project moved forward. That, the Applicant by his conduct while acting in his professional capacity, deliberately and with mala fide intentions assisted the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in completion of process of approvals which resulted into financial losses to Respondent No.4.
5.5) The present case contains criminal ingredients as required so as to travel beyond the realm of civil dispute and enter into the domain of penal/criminal liability. That, the Applicant was connected with the development permissions, approvals and proceedings before the SRA, had complete knowledge of all the facts, the working of SRA and therefore, due to his professional expertise, was in a position to understand the repercussions of the acts of the Accused No. 1 to 3.
5.6) After being aware of the disputes, any conduct or act of the Applicant in furtherance and acting upon the said documents would be prima facie indicative of his involvement in the offences. That, the Applicant in conspiracy with original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 have caused wrongful loss to Respondent No.4.
5.7) That, there is material available in the chargesheet to demonstrate a prima facie case against the Applicant. That, serious allegations of forgery, cheating and criminal breach of trust are prima facie made out. Considering the above submissions, it was submitted that the Application be dismissed.
5.8) Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.4 relied upon the paragraph 6 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation V/s. Aryan Singh, reported in (2023) 18 SCC 399 to submit that the Court cannot conduct a mini trial and that, this is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution.
Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, ‘B’ Panel Counsel appearing for the State adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Bhomesh Bellam, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Perusal of the FIR would indicate that, the allegations of fraud, forgery and cheating are all made against Accused Nos. 1 to 3. The FIR proceeds on the basis that the fraudulent partnership deed was prepared by Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and that, the Accused No.5 i.e. the SRA Officials were cautioned not to take cognizance of the alleged fraudulent partnership deed dated 31st March 2004. The concerned SRA officials did not pay any heed to the letter dated 2nd November 2007, proceeded ahead and granted all permissions and approvals to Accused Nos. 1 to 3 with an ulterior motive of causing wrongful loss to Respondent No.4 and wrongful gain to the Accused persons. The Respondent No.4 has also referred to the various efforts and complaints lodged by him against the Accused. On 3rd February 2011, the Applicant, though aware of all the facts, pending issues and disputes submitted the fraudulent Partnership Deed dated 31st March 2004 to the SRA Authority. The Applicant was at all times aware that, the Annexure- 3 dated 09th February 2004 and LOI dated 26th March 2004, were issued in the name of the firm of 2002 in which Respondent No.4 was a partner and not in the name of the firm registered on 31st March 2004.
The case of Respondent No.4 is that, in the proposal made for the implementation of the SRA scheme, the partnership deed which was initially filed was the one in which the Applicant was one of the partners i.e. unregistered deed of 6th September 2002. The original Accused Nos. 1 to 3, being the other partners of the firm, in collusion with each other, manipulated the partnership deed and removed the name of Respondent No.4 and subsequently got a firm registered in the same name as the earlier firm. The accused were well known of the fact that, Respondent No.4 was not a partner in the registered partnership dated 31st March 2004. The Applicant being aware of the facts and having received the notice dated 14th October 2004, without replying to the same proceeded to submit the said registered partnership deed dated 31st March 2004 to SRA by suppressing the fact from SRA that, Respondent No.4 had 50% rights and benefits in the project in his capacity as a partner of the firm. The Accused Nos. 1 to 3 deliberately did not take action and required steps though condition no. 42 of the LOI dated 26th March 2004 required them to register the partnership deed of 6th September 2002 in which the Respondent No.4 was mentioned as a partner. The Applicant was at all times aware of the correct facts.
The SRA issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 26th March 2004 in the name of the partnership firm i.e. M/s. Amber Enterprises formed by the partnership deed of 2002 in which Respondent No.4 was a partner. The SRA Authority in Clause 42 of the LoI had imposed a mandatory condition that the Power of Attorney and partnership deed as submitted should be registered and the same should be submitted to the office of the SRA before approval of the said building. The Applicant had submitted an unregistered copy of the partnership deed of 2002 under his signature. The Applicant has verified the deed of 2002 to be a true copy. It appears that, in the year 2008 Accused No.1 to 3 completed the construction of the said building. Respondent No.4 on 29th June 2010 made an Application under the RTI Act, 2005 and requested the SRA Authority to confirm whether Clause 42 of the LoI had been complied with. A request was made to furnish to Respondent No.4 a certified copy of the registered partnership deed as submitted to the SRA Authority in compliance of Clause 42 of the LOI dated 26th March 2004. It is the case of Respondent No.4 that, the Accused submitted a fraudulent partnership deed dated 31st March 2004 in the records of the SRA Authority and thereby played a fraud. The SRA Authority submitted the same to the High Power Committee.
It appears that a second partnership firm was formed and registered in March 2004 in the same name and by excluding Respondent No.4 as partner. Pertinent to note here that the name of both the firms i.e. unregistered firm of 6th September 2002 in which Respondent No.4 was a partner and the registered firm of 31st March 2004 in which the name of Respondent No.4 was deleted were having the same name i.e. Amber Enterprises. The record further indicates that the registered address of both the firms is the same i.e. Room No. 7, Tare compound, behind Krishna Hotel, Dahisar East, Mumbai 400 068. I have further noted that, though the registered partnership deed is dated 31st March 2004, the date of commencement of business of the said partnership is deemed to have been considered/taken from 6th September 2002. Strangely, 6th September 2002 happens to be the date when the deed of 2002 was executed in which Respondent No. 4 was a partner and the firm to which the Annexure-3 dated 9th February 2004 and LoI dated 26th March 2004 were originally issued. Further a bare comparison of both the partnership deeds would indicate that, the contents of the deeds are substantially the same. The only change is that the name of Respondent No. 4 has been deleted and the profit-sharing ratio has been altered.
Perusal of the record would indicate that, as per the unregistered partnership deed dated 6th September 2002 the sharing of profit and loss between Respondent No.4 and Accused Nos. 1 to 3 is as follows i.e. Respondent No.4 was entitled to 50% of the profit and loss made in the development and or sale of FSI of CTS No. 64 as and when it is completed or developed or the FSI is sold. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 each were entitled to 45% of the remaining 50% share of profit out of the development and Accused No.3 was entitled to 10% of the remaining 50% share of profit out of the development. The firm which came into existence vide partnership deed dated 6th September 2002 had also opened a bank account bearing CD Account No. 11300 with the Union of India on the same day i.e. 6th September 2002 wherein the names of the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondent No.4 are shown as partners. Certain documents/agreements were executed by the tenants/ unit holders with the said partnership firm on 18th January 2003. The record indicates that, the unregistered deed of 6th September 2002 was initially submitted to the SRA which document was countersigned by the present Applicant to be a certified true copy. The Applicant therefore was at all times on a prima facie basis was aware of the fact that the Respondent No.4 was a 50% partner in the said firm.
The record would indicate that the firm formed by the deed of 2002 had executed agreements with tenants in respect of CTS No. 64. On 26th March 2004, the SRA issued a LOI in favour of Amber Enterprises (firm of 2002) in which the Respondent No.4 was a partner and had 50% profit sharing ratio. Record indicates that on 09th February 2004, the SRA had issued Annexure-3, in the name of the same partnership firm (firm of 2002) in which Respondent No.4 was a partner. Pertinent to note that, the firm registered by the deed dated 31st March 2004, was obviously not in existence when the Annexure-3 dated 9th February 2004 and LoI dated 26th March 2004 were issued. The second partnership firm (firm of 2004) excluding the Respondent No.4 was formed only on 31st March 2004 i.e. (i) after the initial agreements were executed with the tenants on 18th January 2003, (ii) Annexure-3 dated 9th February 2004 and (iii) LOI dated 26th March 2004, which were all in respect of and related to the firm of 2002 in which Respondent No.4 is a partner.
As far as the Applicant is concerned Respondent No.4, on 14th October 2004, through his advocates put the Applicant to notice of the disputes/difference between the partners and of the exclusion of Respondent No.4 from the partnership. Though the Applicant received the notice, surprisingly no reply was ever given to the notice. By the said notice, in the background of the disputes the Applicant was specifically informed not to submit plans to the SRA for approval in respect of the said CTS No. 64.
On record there is a LoI dated 26th March 2004 issued in the name of the partnership firm of 2002 in which Respondent No.4 was a partner. A new revised LoI dated 26th April 2006 is issued in the name of the same firm i.e. Amber Enterprises. A perusal of both the LoI’s would indicate that they are issued in the name of Amber Enterprises and the name of the Applicant is shown as the Architect. Pertinent to note here, that by 26th April 2006 when the revised LoI was issued, the Applicant had knowledge of the disputes as the letter dated 14th October 2004 was already served upon the Applicant. More importantly, it can be prima facie said that the said revised LoI dated 26th April 2006 was also issued to the firm in which Respondent No.4 was a partner, as the registered partnership deed of 31st March 2004 was admittedly submitted to the SRA authorities only on 3rd February 2011. The Applicant having acted for the firm of 2002 and having knowledge of the facts, prima facie the involvement of the Applicant can be said to have been made out.
It appears from the record, that as of 16th July 2010, the SRA authority did not have a copy of the registered partnership deed. The Respondent No.4 appears to have approached the SRA and made enquiries under the RTI Act in respect of the non-compliance of the Clause 42 of the LOI. Clause 42 of the new revised LOI dated 26th April 2006 reads as under:
42.That Power of Attorney and Partnership Deed shall be registered and a copy of the same shall be submitted to the office before approval of sale building.
The partnership deed dated 31st March 2004, from which the Respondent No.4 was excluded as a partner was submitted only on 3rd February 2011. The same was done by the Applicant after receipt of the notice dated 14th October 2004, being aware of the disputes of Respondent No.4 with the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and without replying to the letter in any manner whatsoever nor questioning or seeking any clarifications from the Accused Nos. 1 to 3. As a professional performing his duties and obligations, the least which would be expected from the Applicant is to keep informed all the concerned of the correct and true facts.
Perusal of the Order dated 16th July 2011 passed in Application No. 340 of 2010 indicates that, SRA has recorded a finding that as per LOI conditions, the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 have submitted the registered partnership deed to SRA on 3rd February 2011 and therefore, the LOI has been complied with. What was submitted on 3rd February 2011 was the registered partnership deed dated 31st March 2004 which excluded the Respondent No.4 as a partner. This was probably done by the accused to deny the Respondent No.4 his profits and share.
On record is an Order of this Court, dated 7th February 2012 under which this Court after hearing the Writ Petition for some time allowed Respondent No.4 to withdraw the Petition with liberty to take appropriate proceedings as may be advised in case there is a finding by a civil or criminal court regarding forgery or cheating with respect to the Partnership Deed.
The present Applicant, despite of receiving notice dated 14th October 2004, having knowledge of the fact that the Annexure-3 dated 09th February 2004 and LOI dated 26th March 2004 was issued to the unregistered partnership firm dated 6th September 2002 of which Respondent No.4 was 50% partner, the Applicant submitted the Application alongwith the registered partnership deed dated 31st March 2004 to the SRA Authority. The conduct of the Applicant in not replying to the letter dated 14th October 2004 and by submitting the Application despite having knowledge of the facts and the inter se disputes between the partners i.e. between the Respondent No.4 and Accused Nos. 1 to 3, prima facie indicates that, the Applicant was aware and or part of the conspiracy or had the common intention.
The Applicant despite having received the notice dated 14th October 2004, having knowledge of the correct facts and inter se disputes between the partners proceeded to submit the registered partnership deed dated 31st March 2004 and the proposal moved ahead. Pertinent to note here that the Annexure-3 dated 09th February 2004 and LOI dated 26th March 2004 were issued to the firm Amber Enterprises in which the Respondent No.4 was a partner. The deed of 2004 was submitted only on 3rd February 2011. Here, it is important to keep in mind that the approval is granted by the SRA authorities only after submitting the registered deed. I have also noted that though the firm is registered on 31st March 2004, the effective date of application is deemed to be held as 6th September 2002 i.e. the date on which the first firm of 2002 was registered. All previous approvals and actions were taken by the firm of 2002 in which the Respondent No.4 was a partner. Prima facie it appears that the acts of the partners including the Applicant are a part of a conspiracy and/or done with a common intention and object of excluding the Respondent No.4.
The conduct of the Applicant, prima facie indicates and raises a strong suspicion of conspiracy and acting in concert by the Applicant or at least the Applicant having common intention. I find that, though there is no allegation of any financial involvement or any wrongful gain to the Applicant, allegations are in respect of serious offences like cheating, breach of trust, forgery and conspiracy or acts with a common intention. The own conduct of the Applicant raises strong suspicion of the involvement of the Applicant.
The Applicant being a professional i.e. Architect was duty bound to keep all the parties/partners well informed of the true and correct facts which were at least within his knowledge. Record indicates that the Annexure-3 dated 09th February 2004, LOI dated 26th March 2004 and LoI dated 26th April 2006 (revised in same name, address and addressed to the same architect) were all issued to the unregistered partnership firm of 2002 in which the Respondent No.4 was 50% partner. Since in the initial period the Applicant was connected with the development permissions, approvals, submission of plans and as the Applicant had himself submitted the deed of 2002 under his signature, it can be said that, he was well aware of the facts. There is nothing on record which would indicates that the Applicant as a professional acted in a diligent manner and complied with his professional duties, obligations and commitments and clarified his stand or gave any explanation. The conduct of the Applicant in not replying to the notice dated 14th October 2004, not taking any action or offering any information to the Respondent No.4 and submitting the registered partnership deed dated 31st March 2004 having the same name, same registered office and being made effective from 6th September 2002 prima facie makes out a case against the Applicant. The conduct of the Applicant brings him into the realm of grave suspicion. The knowledge of the Applicant and the Applicant being aware of all the facts of the case in respect of approvals etc., prima facie makes out a case against the Applicant.
The inherent powers under Section 482 of this Court though wide, are to be exercised with care and caution. The power is to be exercised when the twin conditions which are provided in the Section i.e. to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice are met. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the Applicant has not made out a case for exercise of the said powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prima facie, it appears that, the Applicant has not acted only in his professional capacity nor with the required care and responsibility. The Applicant did not reply to the letter dated 14th October 2004, nor offered any explanation and proceeded to submit the registered partnership deed to the concerned approving authority. In my considered view, a prima facie case has been made out against the Applicant.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to dismiss the present proceedings. In view thereof, Application is dismissed..
At this stage, the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant prayed that the interim relief granted by the Order dated 13th October 2021 be continued for a period of four weeks from today, to enable the Applicant to test the correctness of this Judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In view of the facts stated in the Application and the findings recorded in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment, this Court is not inclined to grant the said request. Accordingly, the prayer for continuation of the interim relief is rejected.