- 1 - 746.11 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.746 OF 2011 1.Jaspal Singh Nagi .. Applicants 2.Sandip Dattatraya More vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondents (th.Sr.P.I.Jogeshwari police stn) Mr.V.P.Sawant i.b.Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh for Applicants Ms.P.P.Shinde APP for Respondents CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J DATE: 29th August, 2011 P.C. 1. The Applicants seeks anticipatory bail in Crime no.17 of 2011 registered with Jogeshwari police station, Mumbai under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 511 of IPC on a report lodged by one Narendra Shantilal Shet. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. - 2 - 746.11 Perused the relevant documents including the complaint and other documents relied by learned counsel for the Applicants. It appears that the Applicants, who are builders entered into a contract of sale of flat in the building under construction to the complainant. Initially, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid and the balance amount was to be paid at different stages on completion of different levels of the building. The agreement was executed and registered. According to the complainant, he had made payment of Rs.27,45,000/- However, abruptly the Applicants issued a notice on 18.3.2009 and terminated the contract making vague statement that payments were not being made. In the said notice, nowhere it is mentioned how many slabs or levels of the building were completed and when the amount had become due which were not paid. It appears that the - 3 - 746.11 applicants had tried to refund the amount by issuing a cheque also. It also appears that before issuing notice dated 18.3.2009 terminating the contract, the Applicants had never issued any notice to the complainant that such and such payments were due from him and if the payments were not made within a specified period the contract would stand cancelled. Though without giving any notice, they abruptly cancelled the contract and duped the complainant. 3. According to the Applicants, after cancellation of the Agreement with the complainant they had entered into an agreement for sale of the said flat with Baldeep Singh Bhele and in the suit filed by the complainant, the applicant No.1 has made a statement that he would not give possession to Baldeep Singh Bhele. The record further reveals that Baldev Singh - 4 - 746.11 Bhele is father-in-law of the applicant No.1 and the said contract was itself collusive. 4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, it appears that the builders have tried to dupe small investor who wanted to purchase flat in a building to be constructed. In my opinion, it will not be in the interest of justice to provide any protection to such unscrupulous builders. Application stands rejected. J.H.Bhatia, J