This case began  at Dindoshi Police Station, which was filed by Dr. Rachana D. Fadia for verbal abuse and physical assault against her and her mother, Mrs. Surekha Fadia. They allege that on June 27, 2020, instead of settling accounts at the SHPL office, these two women were subjected to verbal abuse, threats, outraging of modesty, and physical assault in which their son-in-law Pankaj Gada, nephew Dipesh Dhanji Shah, and their office staff were also involved. Two days earlier, on June 25, 2020, Ramji Harkhchand Shah called Dr. Fadia’s father and threatened to kill him for demanding an account, and in line with that threat, on June 27, 2020, he summoned these two women to his SHPL office and perpetrated atrocities against them, resulting in a fracture to senior citizen Mrs. Surekha Fadia and deep, bleeding oral wounds and multiple injuries to Dr. Rachana Fadia. In FIR 307/2020, a representative-cum-relative, Dipesh Dhanji Shah, has left for abroad and never participated in the investigation.

Even more disturbing is the controversy surrounding the medical records. The complainants allege that the injury reports from the municipal hospital were repeatedly altered, while the original OPD papers recorded a single clinical finding. This raises questions about the integrity of evidence in a case based on evidence issued by a medical professional.

A second FIR linked to this FIR was registered at Dindoshi Police Station - In FIR 789 of 2021, this family alleges that in 2011, the same SHPL builder made them sell their two old flats and deposited approximately ₹1.57 crore from the proceeds into his company SHPL, in exchange for which the builder had promised three new flats, 6 car parkings, and regular interest in his new project. But out of the three flats, they registered only one flat in 2017, that too by showing a due of ninety lakh rupees through manipulation of accounts and fabricated documents, while the other flats were sold to third parties and interest was never paid. In FIR 789/2021, based on evidence, Sections 417, 423, 120B, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, and Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act have now been added, yet the anticipatory bail and interim relief for these builders continue to be granted. The chargesheet for all these FIRs is still pending even after nearly five to six years.

Despite such serious allegations, the same accused builders and their representatives continue to secure bail and interim protection. The complainants also allege that they were denied a hearing in the Bombay High Court, where the prosecution verbally told the judge that Dr. Rachana D. Fadia is "not a victim" in the financial fraud FIR 789/2021, although in the statement of her brother, the original complainant of that FIR, Dr. Rachana Fadia's name is recorded among the victims — this stance is contrary to the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decision on victim participation in the Jagjeet Singh vs Ashish Mishra case.

This case has now become a test of how the country’s law handles this builder’s fraud, tampering with evidence, and crimes against women