Mumbai: Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside a magistrate’s order that directed further investigation by Economic Offences Wing (EOW) into allegations of fraud against a developer in the redevelopment of Haji Kasam Chawl and Islam Mill Compound, at Currey Road.“It appears the learned magistrate has passed the impugned order on the basis of conjectures and surmises holding that further investigation is required… without any cogent reasoning,” said Justice Shivkumar Dige on Oct 5. He allowed an application by Nish Developers Pvt Ltd and accepted EOW’s B summary (closure) report that no offence was made out.The developer had challenged in revision the Aug 28 order of the additional chief judicial magistrate, 47th Esplanade court, on a protest petition filed by Vinod Jain. His advocate Ashok Saraogi said there were no structures on the property prior to 1969. The developer, with the help of authorities, manipulated records and created forged documents showing structures existed before 1969, availed Floor Space Index of 4 and benefits of over Rs 2,000 crore.The developer’s advocates Madhur Surana and Sandeep Singh said there were 642 cess and 52 non-cess structures and over 95% of occupants had consented in its favour for redevelopment. The State high power committee had approved cluster redevelopment. Surana said Jain is neither an occupant nor tenant nor member of the property and a stranger to the redevelopment.He said Jain’s allegations were first investigated by Kherwadi Police Station, following his private complaint before the metropolitan magistrate, 32nd Bandra court, which found it false and baseless and filed a B summary report. On Jain’s protest petition against it, the Bandra magistrate transferred the case to EOW, which also filed a B summary report in the Esplanade court. Thereafter, Jain filed a second protest petition and the Esplanade magistrate ordered further investigation.Justice Dige said the magistrate “did not record what remained to be investigated that was not covered by the EOW investigation.” He had not reviewed EOW’s B summary report properly and passed the order “without application of mind” and was “swayed by the allegations.” He did not consider that Jain previously challenged the redevelopment scheme before HPC and HC, which upheld it.Justice Dige noted that “two independent investigating agencies” had conducted detailed investigation into Jain’s allegations, collected and recorded statements, including those of witnesses, sought explanations from authorities and filed B summary reports. Despite this, Jain filed a protest petition seeking further EOW investigation. “This shows substance in the allegation of the applicant (developer) that respondent (Jain) is a blackmailer and extortionist,” the judge added. Saraogi contended Jain is a whistle-blower but Justice Dige said “the record counters the claim.”
