Bombay High Court Quashes MPID Case Against Developer Jagdish Ahuja

The Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act against developer Jagdish Ahuja, his family members, and their associate. This decision came after the complainant parties had amicably settled a long-standing financial dispute.

Justice N.J. Jamadar set aside MPID Special Case of 2023, which arose from an FIR registered at Dindoshi Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the MPID Act. The court recorded that the complainant and other respondents had entered into consent terms to resolve the dispute, which stemmed from financial transactions involving advances made to the petitioner against bills of exchange.

According to the FIR, the complainant had alleged that from 2014 onwards, Jagdish Ahuja, his wife Vandana Ahuja, son Gautam Ahuja, daughter-in-law Sheetal Ahuja, and their representative Vishal Hinduja, who were managing M/s Ahuja Properties and Associates, induced her and her family to advance loans for business purposes. The accused allegedly promised an attractive interest of 21%, assured that the funds would be kept in trust by the firm, and claimed the principal would be returned on demand.

The complainant claimed that a total amount of ₹1.15 crore was advanced by her, her husband, and her father-in-law. While interest was allegedly paid for a few months to gain confidence, payments later stopped, and despite execution of MoUs and consent terms, the principal amount was not returned, leading to allegations of cheating and breach of trust. Upon default in repayment, multiple proceedings had been initiated, including summary civil suits and complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

During the High Court proceedings, the complainant, through his lawyer Parvez Memon, and other respondents informed the court that the dispute had since been fully settled, with the entire agreed amount paid through demand drafts. An affidavit was filed confirming that there was no objection to quashing the FIR and related MPID proceedings. The prosecution informed the court that there were no other victims in the case.

Relying on the Supreme Court ruling, the High Court held that the dispute arose out of private financial transactions with a predominantly civil character and that continuation of criminal prosecution would not serve the interests of justice. The petition was accordingly allowed, and all proceedings were quashed. No costs were imposed.

There are a couple of other cases pending against Ahuja, but this particular case has been successfully resolved, bringing relief to both the developer and the complainant.