MUMBAI: A Mumbai metropolitan court has acquitted a woman accused in a two decade old investment fraud case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove her involvement in the alleged cheating scheme beyond reasonable doubt.The case related to investments collected in 2007 for a purported textile import business that allegedly promised high returns to investors. The court noted a major gap in the prosecution’s case as the original complainant was never examined during the trial.It also found that witnesses had handed money only to the main accused, Parveen Merchant, and not to the acquitted woman. The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to establish her role or common intention to defraud investors.The additional chief judicial magistrate SK Fokmare of the 19th Court acquitted Mehraj Qureshi of all the charges of cheating. The case pertains a complaint filed by complainant Aashiya Lasanwala and several other investors were allegedly induced in 2007 to invest money in a purported textile import business run by accused Parveen Tahir Merchant. Police said more than 30 investors were duped of around Rs 2 crores.The complainant alleged that she became acquainted with Merchant through Mehraj Qureshi, who operated Sunshine Beauty Parlour. Qureshi allegedly informed the complainant that Merchant was engaged in importing cloth from Dubai and Pakistan and that investors could earn substantial monthly returns.The complainant claimed she initially invested Rs 50,000 after being promised returns of Rs 10,000 per month. Subsequently, Merchant allegedly sought an additional Rs 1 lakh, claiming the funds were needed to release imported textile consignments.Investors were allegedly assured returns of up to Rs 40,000 per month on investments of Rs 1.5 lakh. The prosecution further alleged that after making an initial payment of Rs 10,000 as a return, Merchant stopped making payments and avoided investors.When investors sought refunds, they were allegedly refused and threatened.The EOW recorded statements of victims and witnesses, conducted searches at premises linked to the accused, and collected various documents, including memorandums of understanding, receipts, cheques, bank records and handwriting expert reports.The accused were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the proceedings, accused Jyoti Hasmukh Mistry and Shakil Ahmed Rehmani were discharged in December 2015. The trial against Parveen Merchant was separated after she absconded.Aftaf Qureshi advocate for Qureshi said the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, including several alleged victims who had invested money in the scheme. However, the court noted a significant weakness in the prosecution case: the original complainant, Aashiya Lasanwala, was never examined during the trial.The court further found that none of the victim witnesses had entered into any monetary transaction with Mehraj Qureshi. Witnesses consistently admitted during cross-examination that they had handed money to Merchant and not to Qureshi.“One witness stated she never gave any money to Qureshi, another admitted she had no financial dealings with Qureshi, a third witness acknowledged that all monetary transactions were with Merchant and lastly, a landlord who testified against Qureshi ultimately admitted that her grievance was limited to unpaid rent and that she had no financial dealings with the accused in relation to the investment scheme,” said advocate Qureshi.The court observed that for an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must prove dishonest intention from the very inception of the transaction.Magistrate Fokmare held that while there was material against absconding accused Merchant, the evidence against Qureshi was insufficient. The prosecution failed to establish that Qureshi knowingly made false representations regarding Merchant’s business or that she shared any common intention to cheat investors.The proceedings against absconding accused Parveen Tahir Merchant remain pending. The court directed the prosecution to take steps to secure her presence and continue proceedings against her.
