JUDGMENT :

M. M. SATHAYE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for Respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2 Ramesh Kashinath Bhosale appearing in person as power of Attorney holder of his son – Respondent No. 2 - Shri Gaurav Ramesh Bhosale is present and waives service.

2. Record shows that this matter was heard by us on 3rd April, 2023. On that day, when some queries were put to Respondent No. 2 appearing in person, he struggled to answer the queries and therefore, time was granted at his request to prepare himself and argue. The matter was then adjourned to 12th April, 2023 when the matter has finally heard. It is material to place on record that when we asked Respondent No. 2 appearing in person through his constituted Attorney, whether he wants to engage services of a lawyer, he declined and insisted to proceed with the matter himself. In this situation matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of parties.

3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (“CrPC” for short) filed by Applicants praying to quash and set aside the impugned complaint bearing R.C.S. No. 580 of 2017 and consequent FIR No. 37 of 2018 registered with Kamothe Police Station, New Mumbai, for offences punishable under Section 420,468,406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”)

4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sawant submits that this is a case where the allegations in the Complaint and the FIR show that this is a dispute purely of civil nature arising out of sale of residential flat by the Applicants builder (who are Partners of the M/s. Megapolis Landmark LLP - Greenwood Estate) to Respondent No. 2 Shri. Gaurav Ramesh Bhosale of one residential flat bearing No.1, Wing-3 “Greenwood Estate” Near Taloja MIDC Panvel District Raigad. He submitted that all the allegations are arising out of the rights and liabilities arising out of a registered agreement for sale dated 12th October, 2012 and there is absolutely no criminal aspect to the matter. He took us through the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 alleging cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust. He submitted that if dispute like this, raised by a flat purchaser against the builder is allowed to result in criminal prosecution of the builder, it will be not only abuse of process of law but would be travesty of justice.

5. Mr. Yagnik, learned APP for the State has pointed out relevant record and has fairly submitted to the order of the Court.

6. Heard Mr. Ramesh Kashinath Bhosale appearing in person as power of Attorney holder of Respondent No. 2 - Gaurav Ramesh Bhosale (the Complainant) patiently at length. He vehemently opposed the application. He invited our attention to affidavit-in-replies filed by him opposing the prayer of quashing. He submitted that the Applicant builders have demanded certain amounts arising out of the agreement for sale of residential flat, with an intention to cheat. He repeatedly submitted that if the Petitioner builder had informed him at the time booking of the flat that such amount will be demanded, he would not have booked / purchased the flat at all. He also repeatedly argued that he was required to file a consumer case to bring the builder in line with his legal obligations. He submitted that there is variance in some of the terms of agreement executed between the builder and himself if compared with the model agreement as contemplated under Maharashtra Ownership Flats Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act, 1963 (“MOFA” for short) and submitted that this variance amounts to forgery. He further contended that in demand of interest by the builder (which according to Applicants, was for delay in making payment by Respondent No. 2) there is intention to cheat. He further submitted that the very fact that Respondent No. 2 was required to come to Consumer Court and it is only after orders from the Consumer Court that the Applicant builder has gi