Page 60 - History of Canopy Classic Buyers

Crl.Misc.3834/2018
6

provisions contained under Section 18(2) of KPIDFE Act are not
applicable and anticipatory bail petition can be entertained.

9) If no case is made out for of ence under Section 9 of
KPIDFE Act, irrespective of bar under Section 18 of the KPIDFE

Act, application u/Section 438 of Cr.P.C., can be considered. The

Court will have to take a look at the f rst information / complaint
and the allegations made therein to f nd out whether the of ence

under Section 9 of KPIDFE Act is made out. If court f nds such

material, then it has to reject the application under Section 438
of Cr.P.C., as provided by Section 18 of the Act. On the other

hand if no prima facie case is made out to show the commission
of of ence under Section 9 of KPIDFE Act, certainly this court

can consider the application u/Section 438 of Cr.P.C. In the

present case, the complainant and others have invested money
in Canopy Estates Private Limited and have booked f ats. The

petitioners are directors in Canopy Estates Private Limited.
Money handed over by the complainant and others to the

petitioners or their company is towards allotment of the f at in

apartment to be constructed by the petitioners. The said
amount is part of the sale consideration. The said amount does

not amount to deposit. In the complaint it is also stated that the

construction agreements were executed in favour of the
complainant and others by the company. Therefore, whether

the petitioners' company is a f nancial establishment or not

cannot be ascertained at this stage. Looking to all this, it
cannot be said at this stage that the provisions of Section 9 of

KPIDFE Act is attracted. Therefore, Section 18(2) of KPIDFE
Act will not come in the way of granting anticipatory bail. The

other of ences alleged are Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471,

http://canopyclassicbuyers.in/ Page 60 of 101