Bombay HC slams EOW’s ‘reluctance’ to probe cheating case against Kamala Mills owner, transfers it to crime branch

The petitioner, who is the son of a development projects consultant, alleged non-payment of consultancy fees over Rs 20 crore to his father and claimed Gowani also sold flats to third parties, which were allotted in lieu of payable dues.

The HC pulled up the EOW for not taking its preliminary probe forward and instead intending to close the case. It observed the EOW allowed itself to be “hood-winked by innocuous explanations by Gowani”.

A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela K Gokhale on March 18 passed the order on a plea by Ashutosh Hemant Joshi, who raised grievances against Gowani. The plea claimed that despite an MoU signed between Gowani’s firm and petitioner’s father in 2013, he was cheated of his legitimate dues and was not even allocated seven flats, which were in lieu of dues and instead they were sold to others.

Advocate B K Barve for Joshi submitted that he approached the EOW with a complaint in December 2018. While initially a preliminary probe was initiated, officers turned a blind eye to it later, prompting him to approach the HC, seeking transfer of probe to the Crime Branch.

In August 2024, the state’s lawyer informed the HC about the preliminary inquiry, but “surprisingly” within a month, the police told the court they intended to close the case as the non-cognizable offence was disclosed, a stand which did not satisfy the HC.

On October 4 last year, the court was told that the intention to close the case was on the sole premise that the signature of the partner of Orra Realtors, one Ravi Bhandari, who had executed the MoU, was deferred with his signature on passport. It was based on Gowani’s statement that no such MoU was executed between the firm and Joshi.

The petitioner further told the bench that all the partners of the firm had resigned and only two persons were inducted as directors, which the court was “surprised to note were peons in the company”.

Later, the HC perused internal notings and police report and observed, “It prima facie appears that Gowani and his family members, who were earlier directors, strategised to remove themselves from any position of responsibility, so as to avoid liability of the company. The crux of the report is this — Gowani is innocent; a civil remedy is available to the petitioner; and no cognizable offence is made out.”

The HC said, “The course of enquiry revealed a great amount of reluctance” by the EOW. “Prima facie, the investigation agency appeared to have allowed itself to be hood-winked by innocuous statements and explanations made by Gowani,” the Justice Mohite-Dere-led bench observed.

It added that there are certain aspects required to be probed further in the case including flat transactions, Bhandari’s signature, statements of directors (peon and driver) and auditor’s claim that no invoices or account statements show payments to the petitioner’s father for his services. “We are quite flummoxed to see such reticence on the part of the EOW, Mumbai to probe in the acts complained of, more thoroughly and in depth,” the HC noted.

It directed the joint commissioner of police, Crime Branch, to form a team and further continue with the inquiry in “right earnest”, keeping in mind that “a defective or incomplete investigation is bound to rattle the faith reposed by members of society in law enforcement machinery”.

Seeking an inquiry report within eight weeks, the bench posted further hearing to June 9.