1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Revision Application (St.)No.555 of 2009 Paramjeet Pritam Gumbar ... ... Applicant (Orig.First informant) v/s. 1.Sunil Paljibhai Boricha & anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.V. Marwadi i/by Mr.Shailesh Kantharia for Applicant. Mr.M.K.Kocharekar for Res.No.1. Mrs.R.V. Newton, APP for State. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 20th November 2009 P.C. : 1.The Applicant is a member of Oshivara Shantivan Co- operative Housing Society Limited. The Applicant has challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No.1176 of 2007 dated 30.8.2008 discharging accused No. 1 in the criminal case in which the Applicant herein was the complainant. The complainant is heard. It is his case in the complaint that accused No.1 is the son of Ex-MLA, who was allotted a government flat in the MHADA Society by MHADA Authority and who has transferred that flat fraudulently to accused No.1, his son. It is his case that accused No.2, Chief Promoter 2 and accused No.3, Secretary of the Society, were not even members on the date they gave their No Objection to transfer the flat from the father to the son. He has contended that this transfer came to be effected upon the Affidavit dated 13.6.1994 allegedly affirmed by the father of accused No.1, stating that he is retired and would be staying at Gujarat. He continued to stay in the suit flat instead until 1997. It is also his case that accused No.1 made a statement that he had no flat in his name and if that statement is incorrect, allotment would be cancelled. He has not shown that whether that statement was incorrectly, dishonestly or fraudulently made. He has not shown that accused No.1 had another flat in his name in Mumbai. He contended in his complaint that accused Nos.2 and 3 were not the Chairman and Secretary. They were not even members of the Society at the time they gave NOC. The membership of accused No.3 was opposed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. He has not shown when accused No.3 actually became the member by any documentary evidence. He has further contended that there was no resolution of the Society passed for transfer of the share certificate but the share certificate came to be transferred upon the Affidavit dated 13.6.1994 and NOC given by the Chairman and Secretary of the Society. He has also contended that there was overwriting on his share certificate and 3 hence, it is fabricated. He has contended that, therefore, for 5 years the flat could not have been transferred but was transferred prior to that period. 2.The learned Judge has considered that the Society was not even registered. Hence, NOC of the Society was not required. It may be seen that the transfer is made between the father and son. The father has now expired. The flat would be transferred, in any event, to his heirs and legal representatives being accused No.1, his son. No case for prosecuting the criminal complaint is made out. No particulars in the criminal complaint showing the cheating, fraud and forgery are given. The complainant is not even an aggrieved party. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 30.8.2008 cannot be faulted. 3.The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)