Bombay High Court Dismisses MPID Proceedings Against Developer After Amicable Settlement
The Bombay High Court has officially quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act against prominent developer Jagdish Ahuja, his family members, and their business associate. This significant legal development came after the complainant parties reached an amicable settlement to resolve a long-standing financial dispute that had been pending for several years.
Details of the Court Order and Case Background
Justice N.J. Jamadar set aside the MPID Special Case of 2023, which originated from an FIR registered at Dindoshi Police Station. The case involved allegations under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34, along with Section 3 of the MPID Act. The court meticulously recorded that both the complainant and the respondents had entered into consent terms to resolve their dispute, which stemmed from complex financial transactions involving advances made to the petitioner against bills of exchange.
According to the original FIR, the complainant alleged that beginning in 2014, Jagdish Ahuja, his wife Vandana Ahuja, son Gautam Ahuja, daughter-in-law Sheetal Ahuja, and their representative Vishal Hinduja had managed M/s Ahuja Properties and Associates. They were accused of inducing the complainant and her family to advance substantial loans for business purposes with promises of attractive interest rates of 21%.
Nature of the Financial Dispute and Allegations
The accused parties allegedly assured that the funds would be kept in trust by the firm and guaranteed that the principal amount would be returned on demand. The complainant claimed that a total amount of ₹1.15 crore was advanced by her, her husband, and her father-in-law over time. While interest payments were reportedly made for a few months to build confidence, these payments eventually ceased.
Despite the execution of multiple Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) and consent terms, the principal amount was not returned, leading to serious allegations of cheating and breach of trust. Following the default in repayment, multiple legal proceedings were initiated, including:
- Summary civil suits
- Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- Criminal proceedings under the MPID Act
Settlement and Court Proceedings
During the High Court proceedings, the complainant, represented by lawyer Parvez Memon, along with other respondents, informed the court that the dispute had been fully settled. The entire agreed amount had been paid through demand drafts, and an affidavit was filed confirming that there was no objection to quashing the FIR and related MPID proceedings.
The prosecution informed the court that there were no other victims involved in the case. Relying on established Supreme Court rulings, the High Court held that the dispute arose from private financial transactions with a predominantly civil character. The court determined that continuing criminal prosecution would not serve the interests of justice in this particular matter.
Legal Implications and Current Status
The petition was accordingly allowed, and all proceedings were quashed without imposing any costs. This decision highlights the judiciary's approach to cases where parties reach mutual settlements in disputes that are essentially civil in nature, even when they involve allegations under criminal statutes.
It is important to note that there are reportedly a couple of other cases still pending against Jagdish Ahuja, though the specifics of those matters were not detailed in this particular judgment. The Bombay High Court's ruling serves as a significant precedent for similar cases where financial disputes are resolved through mutual agreement between the parties involved.
