1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1816 OF 2009 United Real Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.P.Mundargi with Ms.I.R.Joshi i/by M/s.I.R.Joshi & Co. advs. For the Petitioner. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP For the Respondent No.1/State. Shri Mihir Patel-in-person-respondent no.2 present in Court. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 18, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent no.2 in person. 2 Respondent No.2 is original complainant and the petitioners before this Court are accused nos.3, 4 and 6. According to the complainant, his predecessor had taken land on lease for 999 years in the year 1944 under registered deed from its owner Suleman. There was building standing on that land and it was purchased for an amount of Rs. 60,000/-. According to him, there was also an agreement that if the owners wanted to sell the land under the building, purchaser of the building would have first right to purchase the land also. On the basis of 2 that purchaser of the building and lessee of the land was in possession and there were some tenants in the said building. In 1970, Salima daughter of Suleman filed a suit for possession and that suit was decreed in 1973. In 1988, the complainant filed a suit challenging that decree and according to him, it was obtained by playing a fraud. That suit is pending. In 1982 said Salima sold away said property to one Subhash Javeri. In 1996 complainant filed a criminal case against Salima and Subhash Javeri under Sections 406 and 411 of the I.P.C. It was contended that Salima had fraudulently obtained the decree, which was in challenge and she had no right, title or interest in the property and she and Subhash had committed criminal offence by the transfer of the property. Rightly or wrongly that criminal case is still pending. In 2005 the present petitioners purchased that property from Subhash Javeri. It is contended that already a criminal case under Sections 406, 411 was pending against Subhash. Civil Suit was also pending in the Court. In spite of that, petitioner no.2 and 3, who are the directors of the petitioner no.1/company, in collusion with Subhash purchased the said property and thus, they committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 411 of the I.P.C. Process was issued against all the accused persons. Earlier accused no.2/Subhash had challenged issuance of process but that 3 challenge failed. Thus, as far as accused no.1 Salima and accused no.2 Subhash are concerned, there are two criminal cases against them, one of 1996 and another of 2006. The present petitioners also filed an application before the Trial Court for discharge, which was rejected. Their revision also failed. Hence, this petition. 3 On perusal of the complaint and all the circumstances noted above, it appears that according to the complainant, Subhash Javeri had purchased the property from Salima knowing well that she had no right, title or interest over the property and that she had obtained decree fraudulently and that it was the property of the complainant. According to him, the sale amounted to breach of the trust and such property received by committing breach of trust would amount to stolen property within the meaning of Section 410 and purchaser would be liable for the offence of receiving the stolen property under Section 411. As the first criminal case of 1996 is still pending, it is difficult to make any comment or observations about the applicability of the criminal charges in that case. However, the fact remains that since 1996 a criminal case is pending against the accused nos.1 and 2. If it amounts to receiving stolen property within the meaning of Section 411 of the Cr.P.C. as far as accused no.2 Subhash is concerned, his subsequent 4 purchaser, knowing about such stolen property in the hands of Subhash, may also be held guilty of the offence of receiving stolen property under Section 411. Rejection of challenge of the accused no.2 to issuance of process under Sections 406 and 411 in this very case is material for the purpose of deciding this petition. If they have committed offences, present petitioners being the purchasers with knowledge of the previous cases may also be responsible for the civil as well as criminal consequences. I may hasten to add that whether the offence under Section 406 or 411 are made out or not can be decided only during the trial of the cases. However, in view of the given circumstances, it would not be a fit case to intervene in the orders passed by the two Courts below rejecting the application for discharge. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)