The tribunal of bombay at state diminished heavily on the police for surpassing powers and “destroying the freedom” of ex-wife of actor Hrithik Roshan, specialiser Sussanne Khan, by registering an FIR against her in an alleged 1.87 crore cheating case. A division bench comprising justice F M Reis and justice Nutan D Sardessai discovered “we notice that the grievance lodged by the respondent no. 3 (Mudhit Gupta, Emgee Properties) doesn’t disclose the commission of AN offence punishable below Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code” and additional declared that despite Khan manufacturing all documents the Panaji station police inspector (PI), while not considering identical, went ahead and registered the FIR. By doing thus, the bench control that the police exceeded its powers and destroyed the liberty of the petitioner.
FIR against Sussanne
After poring over the grievance, tribunal of urban center at state control that mere breach of contract cannot produce to a legal action for cheating unless deceitful or dishonest intention is shown at the start of the dealings. While setting aside the FIR, the tribunal noted that permitting such a FIR to be registered is AN abuse of the method of law.
Khan had approached the tribunal seeking quashing of the FIR registered by the police against her following a grievance filed by Gupta, during which alleged that services provided by Khan for skilled coming up with of sure villas in state “were not up to the mark”. The grievance conjointly declared that Khan had deliberately and deliberately disingenuous herself as a designer. The agreement for the project was dead by the parties in 2013. Additional maintaining that the grievance doesn’t disclose any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner, the court declared that it absolutely was not controversial that whereas the agreement subsisted for 2 years, Gupta’s comes were supported Khan’s styles. “The grievance doesn’t disclose that there have been any defects detected on such styles or that any objections were raised by the statutory authorities on the bottom that the plans weren’t ready by a registered designer,” the court conjointly declared.
The tribunal remarked that the litigant needed to somehow entangle the petitioner in legal action to achieve an unfair advantage in unfinished civil proceedings. “A veiled try by the respondent no.1 (Goa state) to initiate a lame prosecution by filing the topic grievance, can’t be permissible and, as such, the FIR deserves to be quashed and put aside, as legal action is unwarranted within the facts of the current case,” the bench aforementioned.