[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sadashiv Nivrutti Hiwalekar vs Manav Sewa Co-Op Society, Thr. Its ... on 15 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14275-DB
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2021
1. Sadashiv Nivrutti Hiwalekar,
Aged 82 years, Occ - Retired,
R/o. Dindayal Nagar, Near Padole Hospital,
Nagpur.
... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. Manav Sewa Co-Op. Society through
its President and Plot holder
Manik Jagorao Sahare,
Aged 70 years, Occu - Retired
R/o Dnyaneshwar Nagar (old),
Manewada Road, Nagpur - 27.
2. Manikrao Sadashivrao Dhawale (deleted),
3. Prakash Manikrao Dhawale
Aged 63 years, Occ- Private
R/o. Old Babulkheda, Behind Medical
College, Nagpur,
4. Madhao Manikrao Dhawale
Aged 62 years, Occu - Private
R/o. Old Babulkheda, Behind Medical
College, Nagpur,
5. Suresh Manikrao Dhawale
Aged 64 years, Occu - Private
R/o. Old Babulkheda, Behind Medical
College, Nagpur,
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
2/12
6. Laxmi Manikrao Dhawale
Aged 61 years, Occu - Housewife
R/o. Old Babulkheda, Behind Medical
College, Nagpur,
7. Hemlata Manikrao Dhawale
Aged 60 years, Occu - Housewife
R/o. Old Babulkheda, Behind Medical
College, Nagpur,
8. Shantabai Marotrao Dhawale
Aged 64 years, Occu - Housewife
R/o. Banerjee Layout, Near Post Office,
Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur-27.
9. Wasudeo Manikrao Dhawale
Aged 63 years, Occu - Private
R/o. Banerjee Layout, Near Post Office,
Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur-27.
10. Chandrakala Marotrao Dhawale
Aged 55 years, Occu - Housewife
R/o. Banerjee Layout, Near Post Office,
Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur-27.
11. Anusaya Vithobaji Lambat,
Aged 48 years, Occu - Housewife
R/o. Chitnavis Nagar, Nagpur.
12. Nalu Manohar Mohad,
Aged 48 years, Occu - Housewife
R/o. Plot no. 79, Mhalgi Nagar,
Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur.
13. Sushila Ramkrushna Bhoyar,
Aged 50 years, Occu - Housewife
R/o. Plot no. 1 & 2,Near R.P.Q.S.
Quarter, West High Court Road,
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
3/12
Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur
14. Vijay Bala Dhawale,
Aged 49 years, Occu - Private
R/o. Dhawale Workshop, Borosto,
Patiyala, Kala, Durg, Chhatisgarh.
15. Sunil Bala Dhawale,
Aged 51 years, Occu - Private
R/o. Dhawale Workshop, Borosto,
Patiyala, Kala, Durg, Chhatisgarh.
16. Anil Bala Dhawale,
Aged 54 years, Occu - Private
R/o. Dhawale Workshop, Borosto,
Patiyala, Kala, Durg, Chhatisgarh.
17. Shyam Bala Dhawale,
Aged 45 years, Occu - Private
R/o. Dhawale Workshop, Borosto,
Patiyala, Kala, Durg, Chhatisgarh.
18. Manohar Govind Bhatt,
Aged 50 years, Occu - Ex-President of
Gandhinagar Co-op. Hsg. Society,
R/o. Gandhinagar, Hsg. Co-op. Society,
Ambazari Road, Nagpur.
19. Dinesh Gajbe,
Aged 58 years, Occu - Ex-President of
Gandhinagar Co-op. Hsg. Society,
R/o. Gandhinagar, Hsg. Co-op. Society,
Ambazari Road, Nagpur.
20. Vidyasagar Vinayak Katarpawar,
Aged 58 years, Occu - President of
Om Construction Company & Power of,
Attorney of M/s. Sirsikar Builder &
Developers
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
4/12
21. Raja Dattatraya Akre,
Aged 49 years, Occu - Pravartak of
Laharikrupa Gruha Nirman Society,
R/o. Akre Hospital, Near Shukrawari,
Nagpur.
22. Chandrakant Pulin Vishwas,
Aged 51 years, Occu - Secretary of
Amar Trupti Co-op. Hsg. So.
R/o. Shyam Nagar, Opp. Maharashtra
Bank, Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur-27
23. State of Maharashtra through P.S.O.,
Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur.
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N. B. Bargat, Advocate for applicant
Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for non-applicant/State
Ms. Rani Nitnaware, Advocate for non-applicant no. 19
Mr. U. A. Gosavi, Advocate for non-applicant no. 1
Mr. Ritesh Badhe, Advocate for non-applicant no. 3,4,5,7,8,9,11 and 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 03rd DECEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application under Section 397, 401 read with
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
quashing order dated 02.01.2021 in Criminal Revision Application
No. 369/2018 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court for
differently abled persons, senior citizens and marginalized section
of society (District Judge - 4 Nagpur).
3. As per the averments in the application, the applicant herein
is the President of society namely Lohar Samaj Sanghatna
(Maharashtra) bearing Registration No. 111/77/NF-2032 and is
also a trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It is
submitted that even though the said society is registered in the year
1977 still at the relevant time there was no immovable property
with the said society for social activities. Therefore, the said society
applied to the State Government for allotment of land in
furtherance of the object of the society. It is also submitted that,
land situated at Mauza Babulkheda , bearing Survey No. 82/1 was
declared as surplus land within the purview of Urban Land Ceiling
Act (for short, "the said Act"). The said society applied for allotment
of the land under the said Act and the Sub-committee of the State
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
Government vide letter dated 03.08.1999 has decided to allot the
land admeasuring 1766.985 Sq. Mtrs. as contemplated under
Section 23 of the Act. Thus, after following the entire procedure in
that regard, the physical possession of the land was taken on
24.11.1999 which continues till date. A sanction was granted to the
allotment of the said land vide sanctioning letter dated 21.07.2000.
4. Pursuant to the sanction of the land and fund in that regard
an agreement between the Collector and the Society came to be
executed on 17.02.2004 and the construction was carried out as per
the sanctioned map on the said piece of land. Thus, it is submitted
in the application that all the legal formalities were complied with.
5. In the backdrop of these facts, one Mr. Sunil Shinde filed a
Writ Petition bearing No. 55/2004 before this Court, and direction
was issued for formation of a one member committee for enquiring
into the alleged illegal allotment of land under the the said Act.
Notice was issued by the said committee pursuant to which the
society submitted its written submission and also filed all the
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
requisite documents stating therein that the land in question has
been allotted as per the procedure established by law. However,
vide order dated 18.03.2011, the Collector, Nagpur cancelled the
allotment of land and the proposal of commission constituted by
this Court was accepted by the Sub-committee of ministry. Being
aggrieved by the said, the Society filed a writ petition bearing W.P.
No. 4596/2011 before this Court in which this Court passed an
order on 25.08.2014 directing the authorities to consider the
documents submitted by the Society. In the meanwhile, judgment
was passed in the Writ Petition No. 55/2004.
6. In the backdrop of these facts, and as per the averments in
the application the Society came across a fact that the non-applicant
no. 1 herein has lodged a complaint with the police authority and
also filed an application before the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate for an enquiry as contemplated under Section 156 (3) of
Cr.P.C. It was further learnt that the learned Magistrate proceeded
with the said application under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and rejected
the prayer under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. vide its order dated
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
02.11.2018. The non-applicant no. 1 being aggrieved by the said
rejection challenged the order before the learned Special Judge,
Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No. 369/2018 and prayed
for issuance of direction. The Special Judge vide impugned
judgment dated 02.01.2021 issued direction to the Police Station
Ajni to investigate into the matter. It is this judgment which is
challenged on various grounds raised in the revision.
7. We have heard Mr. N. B. Bargat learned counsel for the
applicant as also Mr. M. J. Khan learned APP for
non-applicant/State, Ms. Rani Nitnaware learned counsel for non-
applicant no. 19, Mr. U. A. Gosavi learned counsel for non-applicant
no. 1 and Mr. Ritesh Badhe learned counsel for non-applicant no.
3,4,5,7,8,9,11 and 13.
8. Mr. N. B. Bargat, learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the Sessions Court has committed a gross error in law in
allowing the application and has acted mechanically without
application of mind. He further submits that there is no reason
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
mentioned in the impugned judgment for directing an inquiry as
contemplated under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. He further
submits that even if the contents of the alleged complaint is taken
into consideration, no case is made out against the present
applicant. He therefore prays that the learned trial Court has
exceeded its jurisdiction and therefore the judgment impugned is
liable to be interfered by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the non-applicant no. 1
while vehemently opposing the contentions advanced by the
learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the scope of revision
under Sections 397 and 401 is very narrow. He submits that only
when the contingencies as mentioned in the said Section i.e the
judgment impugned being not in accordance with law or exceeding
jurisdiction or improper exercise of jurisdiction, then only the said
judgment can be interfered. He submits that, perusal of the
impugned judgment would reveal that no such contingencies arises
and therefore, according to him, this is not a fit case to exercise
revisional jurisdiction.
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
10. The learned APP appearing for the non-applicant/State also
supports the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the
non-applicant no. 1.
11. In the backdrop of these facts, we have perused the
impugned judgment passed by the Special Judge. As can be seen
from the said judgment, we are unable to find any reasons except
for para 12 thereof. Even if the said para is liberally construed, the
Special Judge only records that as the complainant i.e. non-
applicant no. 1 herein has made allegations of criminal conspiracy,
cheating, wrongful loss, fraud etc. against the respondent/non-
applicants therein, and only because these offences are cognizable
an enquiry as contemplated under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 is directed. These reasons in our view cannot
be said to be legal and valid reasons for directing enquiry. The
enquiry and the consequent lodging of First Information Report has
drastic consequences since the applicants arrayed therein have to
face a criminal trial. Therefore, what was minimum expected of the
Special Judge was to give a detail and cogent reasoning for
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
directing such inquiry and allowing the revision. We are at pains to
say that inspite of our best efforts we could not find such a
reasoning which could withstand the scrutiny of law or can be said
to be a legal reasoning. The Special Judge has only reproduced the
placitums of the judgments cited before it without even making
effort to apply the propositions of law as enunciated in those
judgments to the facts of the case. Thus, the order suffers from
erroneous approach on the part of the Special Judge the Special
Judge has exercised jurisdiction illegally and in a manner which is
not known to law. The order therefore cannot withstand the
scrutiny. In that view of the matter, we pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
(ii) Judgment dated 02.01.2021 passed in Criminal Revision
Application No. 369/2018 passed by the Special Judge, Special
Court for differently abled persons, senior citizens and marginalized
section of society (District Judge - 4 Nagpur) is set aside.
Criminal Revision No. 16.21.odt
(iii) Criminal Revision Application is allowed in above terms with
no order as to costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Shubham
