Dismissed¶40

Nandkishor Dhaku Palav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2025WP/4065/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC (R.N. Laddha J., 24 April 2025) dismisses Cri.Writ Petition 4065/2024 upholding Magistrate's refusal to order police investigation on a S.156(3) CrPC forgery complaint (alleged fake chawl share certificates Nos.771-800, fabricated SRA documents, room No.799, Vakola chawl): complainant already possessed relevant documents and witnesses; Chapter XV CrPC course proper; documents summonable at inquiry under Ss.202-203 CrPC; Sessions Revision No.21/2020 earlier dismissed 16.10.2023; no interference with order dated 03.12.2019.

What did the court decide?

There was no necessity for police investigation as the complainant already possessed relevant documents, and the learned Magistrate rightly permitted the complainant to produce evidence and witnesses while proceeding under Chapter XV of the CrPC. ¶39

Nandkishor Dhaku Palav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Magistrate's order dated 3 December 2019 declining to refer the complaint for police investigation and directing proceedings under Chapter XV CrPC was legally sound and warranted no interference.

¶39

Court's answer

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The Magistrate rightly held that the case could move forward with the issuance of process, and any necessary documents could be summoned directly during inquiry under Sections 202 and 203 CrPC.

¶39

Key takeaways

The Magistrate's order is legally sound and does not warrant interference; accordingly the criminal writ petition is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cri.Writ Petition No.4065 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Nandkoshor Dhaku Palav v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., R.N. Laddha J., 24 April 2025 — The petitioner, original complainant, alleged that respondents No.2 to 8 were falsely challenging his ownership of room No.799 in a chawl using forged and fictitious documents; that share certificates Nos.771 to 800 (including No.799) were bogus and cancelled by General Body Resolution; and that the accused fabricated certificates, even inserting a minor's name, to claim benefits under the SRA scheme. His Section 156(3) CrPC complaint seeking registration of offences under Sections 463, 464, 465, 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 474, 420 and 406 read with 34 and 120-B IPC was not referred for police investigation; by order dated 3 December 2019 the learned Magistrate directed proceedings under Chapter XV CrPC. Revision Application No.21 of 2020 was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 16 October 2023. Held: as the complainant already possessed relevant documents and was in a position to produce witnesses and evidence, there was no necessity for police investigation; the case could move forward with issuance of process, and any necessary documents could be summoned directly during inquiry under Sections 202 and 203 CrPC; the Magistrate's order was legally sound and did not warrant interference. Petition dismissed.

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2025.04.26 13:05:22 +0530

¶2

Chitra Sonawane 33-WP-4065-2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Cri.Writ Petition No.4065 of 2024

¶4

Nandkoshor Dhaku Palav Age 68 yrs, Indian Inhabitant, r/a 9/7B2, Shivaji Nagar, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-55

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

Raman Bhalchandra Gawade Age about 53 yrs, Indian Inhabitant, r/a 8/C Group, Shivaji Nagar, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-55

¶9

Sandesh Ramesh Khadpe Age: 50 yrs.Indian Inhabitant, r/a B1/3/5 Group, Shivaji Nagar, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-55

¶10

Ashok Vasant Redkar Age: 55 yrs.Indian Inhabitant, r/a C/7B/9 Shivaji Nagar, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-55

¶11

Sandeep Ganpat Sawant Age: 35 yrs.Indian Inhabitant, r/a B2/3/1 Group, Shivaji Nagar,

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

24 April 2025

¶14

Chitra Sonawane 33-WP-4065-2024.doc

¶15

Vakola Bridge, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-55.

¶16

Mahesh Shashikant Mahadik Age: 52 yrs.Indian Inhabitant, r/a B1/4/9 Group, Shivaji Nagar, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-55.

¶17

Vikas Anand Holam

¶18

Age: 53 yrs.Indian Inhabitant,

¶19

r/a A/23/1 Group, Shivaji Nagar, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-55

¶20

Sadanand Bharat Dalvi

¶21

Age:68 yrs.Indian Inhabitant, r/a B/2/9/10, Group, Shivaji Nagar, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-55

¶22

… Respondents

¶23

Mr Prakash Vare, along with Ms Prachita Vare, for petitioner. Ms Sangeeta Phad, APP, for respondent/ State.

¶24

Coram: R.N.Laddha, J. Date: 24 April 2025

¶25

P.C.:

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

¶27

The petitioner (original complainant) filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

24 April 2025

¶30

Chitra Sonawane 33-WP-4065-2024.doc

¶31

(‘CrPC’), against the respondents No.2 to 8 for registration of the offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 474, 420 and 406 read with 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). By an order dated 3 December 2019, the learned Magistrate declined to refer the case for investigation by police and put up the matter for recording verification statement of the complainant. The order reads thus:

¶32

“Heard the applicant at length and perused the documents submitted. On perusal of the contents of the application and the documents it appears that the applicant is in position to produce witnesses and evidence in support of his case. As such, there is no requirement of referring the case for investigation by the police. Hence, it will be proper to proceed as per Chapter XV of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, put up for verification.”

¶33

Dissatisfied, the petition filed a revision application bearing No.21 of 2020 before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed on 16 October 2023. The complainant, still dissatisfied, preferred this petition.

¶34

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused are falsely challenging his ownership of room No.799 using forged and fictitious documents. The complainant owns

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

24 April 2025

¶37

Chitra Sonawane 33-WP-4065-2024.doc

¶38

two tenements in the chawl-one inherited and the other purchased-both duly approved by the competent SRA authority. It is alleged that the accused are preventing his membership by producing fake documents and referencing a non-existent structure. The share certificates Nos.771 to 800, including No.799, were found to be bogus and were cancelled through a General Body Resolution. The complainant further alleged that the accused fabricated certificates and even inserted the name of the a minor to unlawfully claim benefits under the SRA scheme.

¶39

The learned Magistrate, in the impugned order, observed that there is no necessity for a police investigation, as the complainant already possesses relevant documents. The learned Magistrate permitted the complainant to produce evidence and witnesses, proceeding under Chapter XV of the CrPC. The Magistrate rightly held that the case could move forward with the issuance of process, and that any necessary documents could be summoned directly during inquiry under Sections 202 and 203 CrPC. Therefore, the order of Magistrate is legally sound and does not warrant interference.

¶40

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

¶41

Page 4 of 4

¶42

24 April 2025

Nandkishor Dhaku Palav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkishor Dhaku Palav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhura Sitaram Kirad vs the State of Maharashtra

Aniket Sanjay Pawar vs State of Maharashtra

Viresh Shantichand Taswala vs State of Maharashtra

Sarvjeet Bahuran Kumar vs State of Maharashtra

Akshaya Ravindra Khedekar vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hemant Chandrashekhar Kadrekar vs Late Shri Syed Anwar Rizvi