Bombay High Court
Vijay Shankar Tavare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:31658-DB
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6165 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.924 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2863 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.79 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4111 OF 2023
Laxmikant Shrikrushna Narvekar ... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.554 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.884 OF 2021
Vijay Shankar Tavare ... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4034 OF 2022
Janardan Arvind Parulekar ... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
----------
Mr. Kapil Dave for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6165 of 2019.
Mr. Rahul Kamerkar a/w Ms. Aparajita R. Jha for the Petitioner in Writ
Petition No.4034 of 2022 and for Respondent No.8 in Writ Petition
No.554 of 2020.
Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh a/w Mr. Shashank Patare for the Petitioner in
Writ Petition No.554 of 2020 and the Applicant in Interim Application
No.884 of 2021.
Mr. S.V. Gavand, Addl. P.P. for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Pravin Padave a/w Mr. Raj J. Kapadia a/w Mr. Raj J. Kapadia i/b
Rajesh Chittewan, PS 1/14
::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 06:33:07 :::
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
ASR And Associates for Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.4034 of
2022.
Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for the Applicant in Interim Application No.79 of
2023.
Mr. Anand Patwardhan a/w Mr. Mohit Chordiya, Ms. Komal M. Gosavi
and Ms. Shretha Laxmi i/b A and A Law for Applicant in Interim
Application No.4111 of 2023 om Writ Petition No.6165 of 2019.
----------
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
DATE : 21st JULY, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1) Respondent No.2 has been served through substituted
service. Insofar as Respondent Nos.3 and 7 are concerned, both are one
and the same person and this Court (Coram : Revati Mohite Dere and
Shyam C. Chandak, JJ) has passed an Order dated 18 th June 2024, vide
which, the Petitioners were granted liberty to implead other co-accused,
except the wanted accused, as party Respondents.
2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by
the consent of the parties.
3) The Petitioners in these matters are the investors as well as
the accused, who are praying for clubbing of all FIRs in relation to the
crimes that have been registered against the Maitreya Group of
Companies. Intervention Applications have been filed by some of the
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
accused as well as other investors, all of whom pray for clubbing of the
FIRs in order to be listed before a single Court for a trial. Similarly, it is
prayed that the properties which have been attached, also be rendered to
same Court in order to ensure that the sale proceeds of the properties
could result in the pro-rata disbursement to the investors.
4) It is, thus, on an identical set of facts that the investors as well
as the accused pray for clubbing of the matters.
5) On 1st December 2021, this Court [Coram : Nitin Jamdar (as
his Lordship then was) and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ] had passed the
following Order :-
"On the earlier occasion, we had asked about the stand of the
State regarding clubbing of all cases under Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial
Establishments) Act, 1999 at one place. The learned PP has
placed before us the communication addressed by the Office
of the Director General of Police from Assistant Inspector
General of Police. We note that this communication refers
only to the case at hand when the query of the Court was
regarding all cases filed under the provisions of Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial
Establishments) Act, 1999. In the communication, there is a
reference to the likely inconvenience to complainants,
witnesses and depositors, who are situated in various parts of
Maharashtra, if the cases are transferred to one place.
Another issue is the attachment of the property and
disbursement of the proceeds, at different courts and the
consequent likelihood of conflicting decisions.
2. To take care of the inconvenience to complainants,
witnesses and depositors that might be caused if they are
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
required to travel from different parts of the State to one
Court, the use of video conferencing can be explored. The
witnesses, officers, depositors can go to the nearest court and
attend on video conferencing facility. Video Conferencing, in
last two years, has proved very effective in the course of
administration of justice all over Maharashtra. The
communication of the Assistant Inspector General of Police
make no reference to possible use of technology. The State
may consider the use of video conferencing technology,
which may address the problem highlighted by the
Petitioners before us. This may also save substantial
expenditure on the part of the State.
3. The Office of the Public Prosecutor will place the copy
of the order before the Secretary (Home), State of
Maharashtra to consider the feasibility.
4. Stand over to 8 December 2021, at 2.30 p.m., under
the caption "For Directions"."
6) On 5th April 2024, this Court (Coram : Revati Mohite Dere
and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ), had passed an Order, which reads thus :-
"1. Learned APP to prepare a consolidated chart of the
accused and the cases registered against them in each of the
petitions.
2. The concerned Additional Director General,
Economic Offences Wing, Maharashtra State to file an
affidavit, as to whether the CRs can be clubbed, as prayed
for in the aforesaid petitions, having regard to the
subsequent judgment of the Apex court in the case of Radhey
Shyam Vs. State of Haryana and Others, WP (Criminal)
No.75 of 2020 decided on 12.05.2022, Amandeep Singh Saran
Vs. The State of Delhi and Others WP(Criminal) No.341 of
2022 decided on 6.11.2023 and Abhishek Singh Chauhan Vs.
Union of India and Others, WP(Criminal) No.40 of 2022
decided on 13.07.2022.
3. The said affidavit to be filed in the Registry within
two weeks from today with an advance copy to the learned
counsel for the respective petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.4034 of 2022, has tendered a compilation of judgments,
on which he proposes to rely. The same is taken on record
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
and a copy thereof is served on the other side.
5. Stand over to 19th April 2024."
7) The learned Addl. P.P. for the Respondent State, points out
from the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 14th June, 2024 that it is the State
Government, which is opposing the clubbing of all the FIRs to be
rendered for trial to one single Court. That was filed through
Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Additional Director General of Police, Economic
Offences Wing, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, in deference to the Order
of this Court dated 5th April 2024.
8) Considering the Order that we intend to pass, we are not
required to advert to the entire factual matrix in these matters. Suffice it
to say that certain features leading to the registration of the FIRs can be
adverted to, for the purpose of completing the narration of the
background of the FIRs. We are, therefore, summarizing the same as
under :-
(A) In 1998, a company known as MSPL was
incorporated by Madhusudan Satpalkar and Varsha
Satpalkar (wife of Madhusudan). MSPL conducted
business of purchasing plots, accepting installments with
regard to the said plots and allotting plots of the agreed
areas to the concerned customers.
(B) In 2003, Varsha Satpalkar took over MSPL
after Madhusudan's death.
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
(C) In 2005-2006, one of the Petitioners, Mr.
Janardan Arvind Parulekar (brother of Varsha Satpalkar),
took over as Director and the business was operated by
Varsha Satpalkar.
(D) On 25th March 2013, SEBI issued a final order
restraining MSPL for carrying on the business and
directing a refund. MSPL followed the directions of SEBI
and stopped collecting amounts from the investors and the
process of refunding was initiated.
(E) The Securities Appellate Tribunal ('SAT')
dismissed the appeal preferred by MSPL on 23rd July, 2013
and confirmed SEBI's Order 25th March, 2013.
(F) SEBI passed an Order on 30th August, 2013
restraining MPSPL, which was incorporated in 2009 and
operated a similar scheme like MSPL, from collecting
money from investors, launching new schemes, disposing
off properties, alienating assets of the schemes and from
diverting funds collected from the public at large.
(G) On 12th September 2014, SEBI confirmed its
interim order dated 30th August, 2023.
(H) Due to restraining Orders passed, Maitreya
Group of Companies started struggling and certain cheques
issued to the customers by the Local Managers, were
dishonored.
(I) Between 2016 to 2019, several other identical
FIRs came to be lodged against the Maitreya Group and
its Directors across the State of Maharashtra.
(J) On 26th July 2016, the Additional Sessions
Judge, Nashik, granted bail to Varsha Satpalkar in FIR
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
No.372 of 2016 and directed that an Escrow Account be
opened for refund.
(K) An Escrow Account was opened and various
customers were repaid their investment amounts.
(L) In 2016, the Director General Of Police, in
order to facilitate efficient investigation and prevent
multiple investigations or contradictory Orders, clubbed
the investigations in the five FIRs registered at Dhule,
Buldhana, Yevatmal and Nandurbar, with the first FIR
registered at Nashik.
(M) On 26th October, 2022, the Petitioner Janardan
Arvind Parulekar completed the sentence of six years and
three months, in view of the judgment in Special Case
No.12 of 2016, with reference to FIR No.322 of 2016.
9) All the Petitioners, as well as the intervention Applicants, are
jointly praying for clubbing of the FIRs for investigation and a trial.
They rely upon the following judgments :-
(i) Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni And Ors. Vs. The State
of Maharashtra And Anr.1
(ii) State of Andhra Pradesh V. Cheemalpati Ganeswara
Rao & Anr.2
(iii) T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala3
(iv) Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.4
(v) Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. CBI5
(vi) Awadesh Kumar Jha Vs. State of Bihar6
(vii) Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra
1 Cri.W.P. No.2784/2018 decided on 2nd May 2019.
2 AIR 1963 SC 1850
3 (2001) 6 SCC 181
4 (2010) 12 SCC 254
5 (2013) 6 SCC 348
6 2016(3) SCC
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
And Ors.7
(viii) Ramkrishna Premchand Dubey and Another Vs.
State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of
Home and Anr.8
(ix) Vijay Shankar Tavare Vs. The STate of Maharashtra
And Laxmikant Shrikrushna Narvekar Vs. State of
Maharashtra9
(x) Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.10
(xi) Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. Government (NCT of
Delhi) & Ors.11
10) We have perused the Notification dated 10th April, 2019,
issued by the Home Department under the Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 ('MPID'
Act), wherein a Schedule has been enclosed indicating 38 attached
properties. The list of the FIRs registered with various Police Stations in
the State of Maharashtra, is at Annexure-I. By a Notification, in the
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 and
section 5 of the MPID Act, various properties of the financial
establishments were attached. A Deputy Collector (MPID), Mumbai
City District, Fort, Mumbai, was appointed as a Competent Authority to
exercise control over the properties of the financial establishments and its
directors, which were attached. A Public Prosecutor with a designated
Court was directed to render necessary assistance to the Competent
Authority in filing the Applications before the Special Court.
7 2020 SCC OnLine Bom.732
8 2020 SCC OnLine Bom.9316
9 Cri. WP No.554 of 2020, dated 1st December 2021.
11 (2019) 10 SCC 800
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
11) In the Affidavit dated 14th June 2014, filed by the Additional
D.G.P., the request for clubbing of the FIRs and the trial, has been
opposed. It is contended that in the Petition filed by Mr. Janardan
Arvind Parulekar, there are 27 cases registered against him and he is
demanding 29 cases to be transferred to Nasik City. In the Petition filed
by Mr. Vijay Shankar Tavare, 23 cases have been registered, though he
has demanded transfer of 31 cases to the MPID Special Court at
Mumbai. In a third Petition, the Petitioner Mr. Laxmikant Shrikrushna
Narvekar, has prayed for 31 cases to be transferred to Mumbai or Nasik,
when 24 cases are registered against him.
12) The law on clubbing of the FIRs and transferring the same to
a Special Court for a common trial in offences registered under similar
schemes floated by a particular company or group of companies, is now
well settled. The salient features necessitating transfer of all the FIRs and
investigation to a single Court, have also been highlighted in the
Judgments cited by the Petitioners' Advocates. The dictum of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court, is that though normally the
general law would be to have separate trials for separate offences, when
several offences originate from a single transaction or a single scheme,
due to which the investors all across the State, commonly feel that they
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
have been defrauded or duped, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that the
Code of Criminal Procedure must be construed in such a way that it
would facilitate an efficient administration of justice, which would have
its origin in a single trial. There would not be a chance of contradictory
evidence being recorded through the investors and other witnesses, which
could happen, if they are recorded in each of the cases with reference to
similar FIRs before different Courts. It is also settled that such clubbing
of the FIRs would quicken the process of trial and save time in arriving at
conclusions. The chance of contradictory judgments by different Trial
Courts, would also be ruled out.
13) In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions are partly allowed.
14) The common prayer to club all the FIRs/Charge sheets for a
common trial before the Special MPID Court at Nasik, with regard to the
schemes floated by Maitreya Group of Companies, with the consent of
the Petitioners/Accused/Investors, is accepted. We direct the learned
Registrar (Judicial-I) of this Court to place this Judgement before the
learned Principal Judge, Nashik, to refer all these cases to the Special
Court. For the sake of clarity, we are adverting to Exhibit 'A', set out
below paragraph 33 of the Affidavit filed by Additional Director
General of Police, for the purpose of directing that all these cases would
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
be transferred to the same designated Special Judge under the MPID Act
at Nashik. Similarly, we direct the learned Registrar (Judicial-I) to
forward copies of this Judgment to all such Courts where the charge
sheets have already been filed. All these charge sheets, therefore, will have
to be transferred to the Special MPID Court at Nashik.
15) In cases where investigation is still in progress, though we are
informed that such number is minuscule, the I.O. of the said Police
Station would proceed to complete the investigation and submit the
chargesheet to the Special Designated MPID Court at Nashik. In the
event, any Order is passed for further investigation under Section 173(a)
of the Criminal Procedure Code, such Order would be implemented by
the concerned I.O. investigating a particular FIR, registered in the said
Police Station.
16) Needless to state that, in the event, any of the accused desire
to move any application for bail or for any other purpose, in connection
with the said cases, all such applications will naturally lie before the same
designated Special MPID Court at Nashik. Same principle would apply
to any application made by any investor or any person.
17) In so far as the recording of evidence of the
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
witnesses/investors etc., by video conferencing, if they cannot travel to the
Special Court, we deem it appropriate to record that the Special
Designated MPID Court at Nashik, would co-ordinate with the
particular Court at the place where the case would have normally been
tried had it not been transferred, for facilitating the arrangement for
recording the testimonies of such witnesses. In case any witness physically
remains present in the Court at Nasik for recording of evidence, the
Court will ensure that the witness is not required to attend the Court
repeatedly for recording the evidence. Such witness will be examined on
priority.
18) In view of the above, even the attached properties, would now
be subject to the jurisdiction of the Special Designated MPID Court at
Nashik. If any properties are to be attached in future, this Order would
equally apply.
19) The exercise of transferring the cases/charge sheets to the
Special Designated MPID Court at Nashik, would be preferably
completed within period of 90 days.
20) Insofar as the expeditious conducting of the trial of these
cases, keeping in view that all the investors are extremely anxious and
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
have suffered grave hardships and manifest inconvenience, keeping in
view that the cases have been registered from 2016 onwards, we would
appreciate if the Special MPID Court, gives priority to these cases in
order to conduct the trials, expeditiously, and preferably posting these
cases at least twice a week for an early trial and disposal.
21) We direct the Additional Director General of Police, Crime
Branch, to appoint a nodal officer, not below the rank of DCP (EOW,
Nasik), to monitor the investigations and co-ordinate with the concerned
Police Stations and the Special Public Prosecutor, all through out in the
cases, to ensure a speedy trial. Unless for compelling circumstances, such
nodal officer shall not be transferred until the trial is over.
22) Those Interim Applications, seeking interim bail, which have
been filed in these proceedings before us, are not pressed by the concerned
accused in the light of the statement made and the same are disposed off.
Needless to state that they would be at liberty to renew their request
before the Special Designated MPID Court and in the event, such
Application is filed, the withdrawal of these Applications in this Court
would not be an impediment.
23) Since these cases have been transferred to a single Special
7. WP 6165-2019+2 Ors.odt
Designated MPID Court at Nashik, only at the request of the accused, as
well as some of the investors, we expect all of them to render co-operation
to the Special Designated MPID Court at Nashik and refrain from
seeking adjournments on unreasonable or trivial grounds. If this is
noticed by the Special Court, costs as deemed fit, may be imposed by the
Court on those seeking adjournments on unreasonable grounds.
24) Pending Interim Applications do not survive and stand disposed
off.
( GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
RAJESH RAJESH VASANT
VASANT CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN Date: 2025.07.29
11:17:56 +0530
