-1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 87 OF 2016

Sussanne Khan

Previously known as Sussanne Roshan

Age : years Occ : Interior Designer

Having office at “The Charoal Project”

Unit no. 1, Dmall, Off Veera Desai Road

Andheri West Mumbai – 400 058.

…

Petitioner

V e r s u s

1.

The State of Goa,

Through the Public Prosecutor,

High Court

Panaji, Goa.

2.

The Police Inspector,

Panaji Police Station,

Panaji, Goa.

3.

Mudhit Gupta

EMGEE Properties

603, 6^th floor, City Centre,

Patto Plaza, Panaji.

`…

Respondents

Mr. N. N. Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitesh Jain and Mr. Vibhav

Amonkar. Advocates for the Petitioners.

Mr. S. R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Bras De Sa , Mr. Ranjit

Shetty and Mr. J. P. Supekar, Advocates for the Respondent no. 3.

Coram

:-

F. M. REIS,

NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

Judgment reserved on :

11

^th August, 2016

Judgment pronounced on : 25

^th August, 2016

JUDGMENT

(Per F. M. Reis, J.)

Heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate appearing

WPCR-87-16

-2 -

for the Petitioner, Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for

the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned Senior

Advocate appearing for the Respondent no. 3.

2.

Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive service.

3.

The above Petition seeks, inter alia, to quash and set aside the

FIR bearing no. 119 of 2016 registered with the Panjim Police Station for

offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.

Briefly, it is the case of the Petitioner that she is the sole

Proprietor of Sussanne Khan House of Design previously known as

Sussanne Roshan House of Design, who has been in the business for the

last fifteen years and has been engaged in several projects as a Design

Company. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent

no. 3 who is the Complainant, executed a written contract with the Petitioner

thereby engaging the services of the Petitioner for providing services for

professional designing of certain villas to be constructed in a property at

Goa. The scope of the work and the terms and conditions thereof were

clearly defined in the said contract. It is further her case that the Respondent

no. 3 had alleged that relying upon the representations by the Petitioner and

in terms of the said contract, a sum of Rs.1,87,92,022/- was paid to the

WPCR-87-16

-3 -

Petitioner. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was not able to deliver the

services as stipulated under the said Contract within the agreed time period ,

so also the services provided by her were not up to the mark and, as such,

the Respondent no. 3 suspected whether the Petitioner was in fact an

Architect or was trying to deceive the Respondent no. 3. It is further the

case of the Petitioner that an Arbitration Petition bearing no.

ARBP/1640/2015 was filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent no. 3.

It is further contended that the Respondent no. 3 alleged that they repeatedly

asked the Petitioner to provide her Architectural Registration Number so as

to verify with the Council of Architecture whether the Petitioner was a

qualified Architecture which, according to the Respondent no. 3, was not

provided by the Petitioner. It is further contended that the Respondent no. 3

engaged the services of Mr. Rakesh Taneja, Advocate to inquire from the

Council whether she was registered as an Architecture and by an email

dated 07.09.2015, the said Advocate inquired from the concerned

Department and in response to an email sent on 08.09.2015 stated that the

Petitioner was not registered with the Council. It is further the contention of

the Petitioner that the Respondent no. 3 filed a written complaint with the

Panjim Police Station a