PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has refused to quash an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Cell (EOC) against a Mumbai-based couple in an alleged property fraud worth around Rs 3.7 crores.
Justice Ashish Chavan, in an order on Monday, held that the allegations and material gathered during the investigation prima facie disclosed offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy against Jeremias D’Souza and Collette D’Souza under Sections 420 (cheating) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.
The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking the quashing of FIR, which was registered based on a complaint filed by Haryana resident Manjeet Virmani.
Virmani had alleged that the petitioners induced him and two others into multiple property transactions in Goa by claiming they had clear and marketable title over various properties while suppressing legal deficiencies such as pending inventory proceedings, tenancy disputes, and lack of legal authority to transfer ownership.
The amount misappropriated was around Rs 3.7 crore through six MOUs executed between January and June 2024 concerning properties at Assagao, Siolim-Marna, Arpora-Nagoa and Corjuem.
The order recorded that the petitioners had projected themselves as aggregators authorised by property owners. They represented that the lands were free from encumbrances and capable of lawful transfer.
“Relying on these representations, the complainants were induced to pay an amount of approximately Rs 3,70,00,000 to the petitioners over a period of time,” the court observed.
During the hearing, senior advocate Sudin Usgaonkar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the dispute was purely commercial in nature and had wrongly been given a criminal colour. He contended that the petitioners were only property aggregators acting on behalf of owners and that arbitration proceedings were already pending between the parties.
The petitioners also claimed that the complainants were fully aware of pending litigations and title issues before entering into the transactions.
However, the State and the complainant opposed the plea, contending that the petitioners had dishonestly induced buyers from the inception of the transactions despite knowing that they lacked authority from all owners and that several title disputes and inventory proceedings were pending.
Referring to Supreme Court rulings on quashing of FIRs, Justice Chavan said courts should not interfere with investigations at a preliminary stage when allegations prima facie disclose cognisable offences.
“It is not the case that there is a subsequent breach of promise or a failure to adhere to the terms of the MOUs,” the court said, adding that the material on record prima facie showed “fraud and deception at the very inception”.
Holding that the case did not warrant exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings, the court rejected the petition.
