1 cra.1550.10 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1550 OF 2010 Pandurang Parisa Kamble and Anr. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.R. Chitnis, Sr. Counsel along with Mr. J.K. Mitra i/by Ms. Sabeena Mahadik for the applicant. Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : JANUARY 05, 2011 P.C. 1. This application is filed under section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing of C.R. No. I 44 of 2010 registered with Kopri Police Station, Thane on the complaint of respondent no. 2. 2. Applicant no. 1 was Chairman of Shramdhan Coop. Hsg. Society at Thane Kopri and applicant no. 2 was its Secretary. The complaint alleges that respondent no. 2 and his parents on coming to know about room no. 19 in building no. 3 of the society being available for sale, decided to purchase the same for the consideration of Rs.2 lacs. For that purpose respondent on. 2 entered into the 2 cra.1550.10 agreement dated 16th December, 2000 with the applicant as Chairman of the society. At that time, neither the applicant nor the Secretary disclosed the fact that there was loan taken by the society for construction of the society building and that the property was given as security for repayment of the loan. After respondent no. 2 purchased the room and started occupying the same, in the year 2006, he received a notice from the Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation stating that there is a loan of Rs. 1,33,000/- on the said room of the society and there was attachment levied on the room for the non payment of the loan amount. Respondent no.2 therefore, filed a complaint alleging that the applicants sold room no. 19 to him without disclosing the fact of the loan taken against the said room and thereby cheated him. On 5th April, 2010 when the application came up for admission, a claim was made on behalf of the applicants that the fact of the existing loan on the room was informed to respondent no. 2 and the copy of the statement showing the sum due and payable to the State Corporation was annexed to the agreement executed with respondent no. 2. With this claim, an adjournment was sought to produce the agreement. Accordingly time was granted until 21st April, 2010. Since then till today the applicants have not produced copy of the 3 cra.1550.10 agreement However, the learned A.P.P. has produced the same from the records of the police. Perusal of the agreement shows that the claim of the applicant is not correct. The agreement nowhere discloses the existing loan on the premises. It also does not make any reference to the statement of the amount due and payable to the Corporation being annexed to the agreement. Therefore, as regards the complaint of concealing the fact of loan, the same is prima facie established. 3. Mr. Chitnis, the learned senior counsel then submits that the complaint as filed does not disclose offence of cheating. Perusal of the complaint does not substantiate this claim either. It is next sought to be submitted that the respondent himself had requested the applicant that the fact of loan should not be mentioned in the agreement. Firstly this would be a matter of evidence and secondly any defence which is to be taken by the applicant in the proceedings cannot be taken into account at this stage of quashing of the proceedings. Hence, application is rejected. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)