Mumbai: In a major setback to Mumbai police, the designated Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act court has directed the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) to re-register an FIR in a complaint of cheating, which the police closed as a civil dispute.Judge Vikram Jagdale directed the police to register a fresh FIR against Ranbir Real Estate and Developers LLP and its partners Jaikumar Gajanand Gupta and Suyash Jaikumar Gupta, holding that a prima facie case was made out under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act that speaks about fraudulent default and attachment of properties.The court was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by complainant businessman Mahesh Doshi against the closure report.According to his complaint, the accused, through Chirag Shah of Aditi Construction, induced Doshi and his family members in March 2021 to invest money for the redevelopment of a property at Jogeshwari East, promising returns of 18% per annum payable quarterly along with repayment of the principal amount. Acting on the assurance, Doshi and his family invested around Rs 7.65 crore.The court noted that the accused initially paid quarterly interest till June 30, 2024, but subsequently defaulted on both interest and repayment of the principal.The complainant alleged that as of Jan 1, 2025, the outstanding amount due to him, including principal and interest, stood at Rs 8.47 crore. He further claimed that the accused had defaulted on payments to several other investors.The complainant argued that the transactions constituted “deposits” under the MPID Act as the money was accepted with a promise to repay the principal along with assured returns. It was also contended that failure to repay attracts Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the matter was contractual in nature and that a memorandum of understanding executed between the parties showed a civil dispute.Rejecting the state’s contention, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s recent judgement in Alka Agrawal and Others versus State of Maharashtra.The court held that the definition of “deposit” under the MPID Act has a wide ambit and includes money accepted with a promise of repayment and returns, irrespective of the nomenclature of the transaction.The court observed that the applicant and his family members had advanced substantial sums based on assurances of repayment with 18% annual interest, which the accused had initially honoured the commitment by making part payments towards interest, but later defaulted in repaying both the principal and the promised returns.
