Mumbai: A sessions court has set aside a magistrate’s order that had dismissed a decade-old cheating complaint involving an alleged fraud of over Rs 1.46 crore. The applicant, Vishalaskhi Shetty, pointed to a discrepancy in court records where a scheduled date in Jan 2024 was allegedly struck out and advanced to Dec 2023 without her knowledge. The judge held the lower court’s decision to accept a police closure report was flawed because it was passed “behind the back of the complainant” after the court dates were shifted without notice. “It is true that the… High Court directed to apply for expeditious hearing but it does not meant that after giving a date to complainant and before the given date decide the complaint behind the back of the complainant. The magistrate has to pass the order on merit after giving opportunities to both the sides. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order is not just legal and proper, it needs interference,” additional sessions judge M Mohiuddin MA said. Shetty moved the sessions court Nov 2024, after a magistrate’s court accepted the police closure report in Dec 2023. The dispute originated from a 2013 complaint filed by a businessman who alleged Rajesh and Kashmira Parekh induced him to invest Rs 1.46 crore in a specific healthcare venture. The duo allegedly diverted the money into a medical export company and failed to provide returns. Following the original complainant’s death in 2017, his wife, Vishalakshi, was substituted as legal heir to pursue the case. The police filed a ‘C’ Summary report, suggesting the matter was of a civil nature rather than criminal. While the Parekhs argued the complainant had failed to file a protest petition for years, Shetty contended the magistrate prematurely disposed of the case. “From the record, it clearly shows initially the advocate for the complainant was shown present and date was given to him as Jan 13, 2024. Thereafter, accused and advocate appeared, filed application and copy of order of… High Court (for expeditious hearing) . Therefore, it can be gathered that date was changed without notice to the complainant and her advocate,” the judge said. The court further emphasised that while higher courts had directed an expeditious trial, this did not authorise the dismissal of a case without a fair hearing. The sessions court has now restored the complaint to its original stage. The magistrate has been directed to reconsider the closure proceedings and decide the matter on its merits after providing both parties a proper opportunity to be heard, in accordance with previous high court directives for a speedy resolution.
