IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1374 OF 2001 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1374 OF 2001 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1374 OF 2001 Anupama Arun Sheode ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ---- None for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Pratinidhi h/for V.D.Borwankar for respondent no.2. Mr.A.R.Patil, APP for the respondent/State. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 11.4.2008. PC 1. None for the petitioner. Heard learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and learned APP for the State. 2. This is a petition filed by the petitioner impugning two judgments and orders. The first being a judgment and order dated 6.5.2000 passed by the JMFC, 32nd Court, Pune in RCC No.145/98 discharging the accused of offences punishable nder Sections 3(2) (i), 7, 10, 11 read with 13(i) & (3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. It appears from the record that the Complainant was an Advocate. The 2nd respondent was a builder who had agreed to sell a flat to the Complainant. An : 2 : agreement was registered on 29.12.1995. It was the case of the Complainant that the possession of the flat was delivered to her by the accused on an assurance that the completion certificate had been obtained by him. It was later found that the completion certificate has not been obtained and according to her, possession was handed over before obtaining completion certificate. It was the further grievance in the complaint that some work was not completed in the building as per plan and therefore, offence under Section 7 of the Act was committed. Similarly, conveyance was not completed and no co-operative society was formed and therefore, she also alleged commission of offences under Sections 10 & 11 of the said Act. 3. On perusing of the impugned judgment and order, I find that the Magistrate concluded that there was no clear clause in the agreement dated 29.12.1995 to indicate that possession has been given as per the agreement. The finding of the revisional Court in this regard is that the complaint was silent as regards the possession of the said flat. Agreement was also silent about the delivery of possession. There was a concurrent finding that there was no material to indicate that there were deficiencies. As regards the offences under Sections 10 & 11, the finding was that there was no averment made in the complaint that all the flats were sold out as the : 3 : obligation of the builder to form the society was to come into effect after six months of selling of all the flats. 4. In view of such concurrent finding on the fact, there is no scope for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Writ petition is rejected. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)