Point of Law: Power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the Code.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Aabad Ponda, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Jugal Kanani, Mr. Varun Sharma and Mr. Mrinal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No.1596 of 2017 and Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No.2164 of 2017 and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia assisted by Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in both the petitions.

2. In both the petitions, similar F.I.R. is under challenge and that is why both the petitions have been heard together.

3. Mr. Aabad Ponda, learned Senior counsel has argued Cr. M.P. No.1596 of 2017 and Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel has adopted his argument in Cr. M.P. No.2164 of 2017.

4. These petitions have been filed for quashing of noting of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No.429 of 2017, dated 15.02.2017, registered under Sections 420/406/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur.

5. Mr. Ponda, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners at the outset submitted that petitioner no.1 is the General Manager-Customer Relationship Management with respect to the Project and petitioner no.2 is the Assistant General Manager of the Project and petitioner no.3 is the Managing Director of the Company, who is not involved in the day to day affairs of the business of the Company.

6. The complaint petition being C1 Case No.297 of 2017 was filed by opposite party no. 2, who is represented through its constituted attorney, namely, Sri Aditya Narayan Mahto alleging therein that the complainant booked a Flat bearing No. Apartment no.801 in Two ICC, situated at Island City Centre, Dadar (East), Mumbai-400014 on the 8th Floor and accordingly paid a sum of Rs.1,95,94,431/- as per schedule given by the accused persons. It was also alleged in the complaint case that the complainant booked the said Flat on 31.08.2014 by way of submitting the Booking Application Form and booked the Apartment bearing No.801 on the 8th Floor, consisting of 4 BHK, and measuring Area 1941 sq. ft., carpet area, with two car parking spaces in the residential building known as Two ICC, situated at Island City Centre. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as booking amount through RTGS on 29.08.2014. The complainant confirmed the said booking on 15.09.2014 and subsequently the accused company issued the allotment letter on 06.10.2014. Thereafter, the complainant used to pay the installments in terms of the schedule of the agreement, but the accused company was not constructing the proposed Apartment as per their commitment and thus the Project became delayed by more than a year as such the complainant proposed to the accused persons to change the scheme in Construction Linked Plan in stead of previous 30:70 Plan. It was further alleged that after several persuasions and making correspondences with all the accused persons individually through mails then the said proposal was accepted on 09.06.2016 and accordingly mail was sent by the accused company. Thereafter, the complainant requested the accused persons to send the payment schedule in terms of the new scheme i.e. CLP but they instructed to make payment as per previous plan. The accused persons always misled the complainant and misrepresented the complainant in spite of several requests made by him. Thereafter, the accused persons instructed the accused persons to cancel the Booking of the Apartment in question and to refund the paid amount i.e. Rs.1,95,94,431/- with 18% interest till final payment of the amount duly acknowledged by the company. It was also alleged in the complaint case that the agreement entered with them was executed under the old scheme of 30:70. The said agreement has since been novated and even the said scheme has become invalid. A new proposal was given by th