Dismissed¶28

Dastagir Ismail Kazi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2026WP/6788/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC (Jamadar, J.) dismissed writ petition challenging Slum Areas (I.C.&R.) Tribunal, Mumbai order dated 09.10.2025 refusing review and Section 340 CrPC action for alleged forgery involving 'Limited' stamp of 'Ekta Complex SRA CHS Proposed Limited'; S.340 action only where court finds it expedient in interest of justice; Pritish v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 1 SCC 253 relied upon.

What did the court decide?

An action under Section 340 of the Code is warranted when the Court finds that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate such action. ¶21

Dastagir Ismail Kazi vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

11-WP6788-2025.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6788 OF 2025

Dastagir Ismail Kazi

...Petitioner

Versus

State Of Maharashtra And Ors …Respondents

¶9

Ms. Arti Bajpai, for the Petitioner. Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶10

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 26^th MARCH, 2026

¶11

PC:-

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

SANTOSH SUBHASH

¶14

KULKARNI

¶15

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.04.01 10:06:09 +0530

¶16

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 9^th October, 2025 passed by the President, Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C.&R.) Tribunal, Mumbai, whereby an application in the nature of review as well as to initiate action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) for alleged forgery by using the stamp having the word “Limited” in the name of “Ekta Complex SRA CHS Proposed Limited” came to be rejected.

¶17

The learned President of the Tribunal was of the view that

¶18

the action under Section 340 of the Code was not warranted.

¶19

1/3

¶20

11-WP6788-2025.DOC

¶21

An action under Section 340 of the Code is warranted when the Court finds that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate such action. The use of the stamp with the word “Limited”, even if taken at par, would not give rise to the commission of the offences for which the Court would find it expedient in the interest of justice to initiate action under Section 340 of the Code.

¶22

A useful reference in this context can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pritish vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.¹ wherein the contours of the powers under Section 340 of the Code were expounded as under :-

¶23

“9. Reading of the sub-section makes it clear that the hub of this provision is formation of an opinion by the court (before which proceedings were to be held) that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence which appears to have been committed. In order to form such opinion the court is empowered to hold a preliminary inquiry. It is not peremptory that such preliminary inquiry should be held. Even without such preliminary inquiry the court can form such an opinion when it appears to the court that an offence has been committed in relation to a proceeding in that court. It is important to notice that even when the court forms such an opinion it is not mandatory that the court should make a complaint.

1 2002 (1) SCC 253.

2/3

11-WP6788-2025.DOC

This sub-section has conferred a power on the court to do so. It does not mean that the court should, as a matter of course, make a complaint. But once the court decides to do so, then the court should make a finding to the effect that on the fact situation it is expedient in the interest of justice that the offence should further be probed into. If the court finds it necessary to conduct a preliminary inquiry to reach such a finding it is always open to the court to do so, though absence of any such preliminary inquiry would not vitiate a finding reached by the court regarding its opinion. It should again be remembered that the preliminary inquiry contemplated in the sub-section is not for finding whether any particular person is guilty or not. Far from that, the purpose of preliminary inquiry, even if the court opts to conduct it, is only to decide whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have been committed.”

¶28

As the petition is devoid of substance, the petition stands

¶29

dismissed.

¶30

3/3

Dastagir Ismail Kazi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dastagir Ismail Kazi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kumar Enterprises Thr Propritor Rajkumar Prahlad Mane vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited

Bhushan Bachubhai Parekh vs Malcolm Darayes Pestonji

Altaa Constructions, a Proprietary Concern of Mukesh J Shah vs Mr. Iresh Chapalwar

Mandakini Pudnalik Patil Decd Thr Lhr Sudhakar P Patil Decd Thr Lhrs vs Shree Sahyadri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Kalwa

Jagannath Parsuram More Thr Poa Sharad Jagannath More vs Shree Sahyadri Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd. Kalwa

M/S. Mahanagar Realty vs Mr. Anita Jayant Oswal