Mumbai: In a significant development in the ₹90 crore investment fraud case in Maharashtra, a designated court has rejected a discharge plea filed by a director of the accused company, observing that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial. The ruling clears the way for framing of charges and the commencement of detailed court proceedings.
The case pertains to Temple Rose Real Estate Pvt Ltd, which is accused of luring investors with promises of unusually high returns and mobilising large sums of money, only to later default and allegedly divert funds for other purposes. According to the prosecution, nearly ₹90 crore was collected from around 3,000 investors under the scheme.
Court Says ‘Nominal Role’ Argument Cannot Block Trial at This Stage
The accused, Markas Yohan Thorat, had approached the court claiming that he was merely a “nominal director” with a limited role confined to land-related activities. He argued that he had no involvement in the company’s financial dealings or investment schemes. However, the court refused to accept this argument at this stage.
FCRF Returns With CDPO, Its Premier Data Protection Certification for Privacy Professionals
In its order, the court noted that Thorat served as a director from 2009 to 2016—the same period during which the alleged fraud occurred. It further observed that his resignation prior to the registration of the FIR in 2017 does not absolve him of legal responsibility. The court emphasised that such defences can only be examined during the trial, not at the preliminary stage.
Witness Statements and Money Trail Put Director’s Defence Under Cloud
Witness statements played a crucial role in the court’s decision. According to records, several statements indicate that the accused actively promoted the investment schemes and interacted with potential investors. The court observed that these accounts weaken the claim that his role was merely formal or insignificant.
₹2.16 Crore Receipts Raise Tough Questions Over Claimed Limited Involvement
Financial records also raised serious questions about Thorat’s claims. Investigations revealed that he received approximately ₹2.16 crore in the form of salary, commission, and dividends. The court noted that such substantial financial benefits are inconsistent with a claim of a limited or peripheral role within the company.
Additionally, documents seized during the investigation—including power of attorney papers, sale deeds, and transaction records—suggest that the accused was involved in the company’s business operations, particularly in property acquisitions. The prosecution further alleged that certain properties were purchased in the names of his family members using funds collected from investors, strengthening suspicions of fund diversion.
The prosecution argued that the material on record creates a “grave suspicion” against the accused, sufficient to frame charges. Agreeing with this, the court clarified that at this stage, the objective is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to assess whether a prima facie case exists.
Thorat had also contended that he held only a 0.49% stake in the company and that no investor had directly accused him. However, the court dismissed these arguments, stating that such defenses can be tested only during the course of the trial and do not warrant discharge at this juncture.
With Discharge Plea Rejected, ₹90 Crore Scam Case Enters Crucial Phase
With the dismissal of the plea, the case now moves into the next phase, where charges will be formally framed and a full-fledged trial will examine the evidence and testimonies in detail. Legal experts believe that the court’s stance underscores a strict approach toward financial fraud and reinforces accountability within corporate structures.
The case also highlights the risks associated with investment schemes promising high returns without adequate transparency or regulatory oversight. It serves as a reminder that investors must exercise due diligence and verify the legitimacy of such offers before committing funds.
As the trial proceeds, the outcome is expected to have broader implications for similar cases, sending a clear message that claims of limited involvement will not easily shield individuals from legal scrutiny when substantial evidence suggests otherwise.
