MUMBAI: :The Bombay high court quashed an FIR registered against the trustees of a public charitable trust after the parties involved reached an amicable settlement. The case pertained to allegations of financial mismanagement and breach of trust by trustees of Botswana trust over prime properties in Mahim and Fort, Mumbai.
In April the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) arrested Nasli alias Bunny Batliwala (49), a trustee of HIMS Botawala charitable Trust under the IPC sections of cheating, criminal breach of trust and 120 B of criminal conspiracy.
H.I.M.S. Botawala charities (Botawala trust) having been established under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act-1950, works for the noble objective of providing aid for medical treatment, education and welfare of poor, deprived and orphans in sunni vora muslim community.
Complainant developer Javed Hussain in his FIR alleged that in 2010 he started taking possession of the galas in by compensating the 21 gala owners out of 40 owners to the tune of Rs 21 crores hoping to get a neat profit in the redevelopment. In 2013 the trust passed a resolution that the Mahim property will be jointly redeveloped with Javed’s Reliable Investment. However in 2018 the complainant was shocked to learn that the trust without his consent or knowledge sold the said property to Badri Infraprojects for Rs 28 crores. Similarly in the Nicole and Richardson building at Horniman circle too, Javed settled the gala owners and paid Rs 2.59 crores to trustee Nasli Batliwala and Shamim Botawala who allegedly didnot deposit the money in the account of the trust and thus incurred losses of Rs 21 crores.
After filing the FIR, the involved parties negotiated a settlement. The complainant affirmed in an affidavit that the dispute was personal, commercial in nature, and did not impact society at large. He also declared he did not wish to pursue the case further.
The high court bench, comprising Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Dr. Neela Gokhale, acknowledged the settlement.The apex court had allowed quashing of criminal proceedings in private disputes if the chances of conviction were remote and the matter did not affect public interest.
