[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Hemant P. Jain And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 April, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:15463-DB
72-apl1083-2015.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1083 OF 2015
Hemant P. Jain & Others ... Applicants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
Mr. Nikhil Rajeshirke with Ms. Rutuja D. Gawas and
ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI
Mr. Saurabh Sunil Rajeshirke for the applicants.
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Mr. Yogesh Nakhwa, APP for respondent No.1-State.
Date: 2026.04.01
18:34:19 +0530
Ms. Gauri V. Date, WPSI, Dadar Police Station, is
present.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : APRIL 1, 2026
P.C.:
1. The present criminal application has its beginning in the act
of respondent No.2 initiating prosecution by lodging First
Information Report No.114 of 2015. The offences stated therein
are under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 536 read with Section 34
of the IPC. When one reads the FIR as a whole it gives an
impression that the dispute is projected as one involving cheating,
forgery and use of alleged false documents. However, on careful
reading, the substance of the allegations appears to arise from a
redevelopment arrangement between the parties. The applicants
say that the complaint itself is false and without proper basis. They
point out that the complainant is the son of Smt. Sharda Salvi,
who was an occupant of a room in a chawl property forming part
72-apl1083-2015.doc
of a redevelopment project undertaken by the applicants. The
main grievance is that though there was an understanding that a
particular flat on the 15th floor would be given as permanent
alternate accommodation the applicants have offered a different
flat on the 8th floor. It is further alleged that there was pressure
and threats and also that the construction was not as per approved
plans and occupation certificate was not obtained. One more
allegation is about signatures said to be forged on a document
submitted to the authority. All these allegations, though stated in
language of criminal offences, appear to be closely connected with
performance of obligations arising out of redevelopment and
allotment.
2. Thus, when the matter is seen in its proper perspective the
dispute between the parties appears to revolve around the
entitlement of respondent No.3 to a particular premises in the
redeveloped building. The real issue is not of deception in the
criminal sense, but it is about which flat is to be allotted and
whether the agreed terms were followed or not. The allegation
regarding change from flat No.1501 to flat No.801 indicates
dissatisfaction with the allotment. Similarly, the allegation of
forged signature on Annexure-II is also linked with the process of
obtaining permissions and approvals in the course of
redevelopment. These aspects show that the foundation of the
dispute is civil in nature, though it has been given a criminal
colour by the complainant.
3. An important development has taken place during the
pendency of this application. Respondent No.3, who is the person
72-apl1083-2015.doc
actually entitled to receive the alternate premises, has filed an
affidavit on oath. In that affidavit, she has clearly stated that she
has no grievance regarding the allotment of flat No.801 in place of
flat No.1501. She has further stated that she has no objection if the
present criminal proceedings are brought to an end. This
statement comes from the person who is directly affected and
whose alleged rights formed the basis of the complaint. Once such
person herself expresses satisfaction and absence of grievance, the
very foundation on which the criminal law was set in motion has
now been settled in substance.
4. In this background it becomes necessary to consider the
nature of the offences alleged. Though the sections invoked in the
FIR are of serious kind on plain reading, the Court cannot ignore
the real nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court in Narinder
Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others , 2014 (6) SCC 466
has laid down guiding principles for quashing of criminal
proceedings when parties have settled their disputes. It is made
clear that where offences are of a private character and do not
have serious impact on society at large, the High Court can
exercise its powers to secure ends of justice. At the same time it is
also cautioned that offences which are truly against society should
not be quashed merely because parties have agreed. Therefore, the
Court has to carefully see whether the case falls in one category or
the other.
5. In the present matter the allegations relate to a
redevelopment dispute between private parties. There is no
element shown which affects public peace, public morality, or
72-apl1083-2015.doc
larger societal interest. The alleged acts are confined to the parties
and their inter se arrangement.
6. Having regard to the above aspects, and especially
considering the stand taken by respondent No.3 that she has no
grievance, it appears that continuation of criminal proceedings
would serve no useful purpose. When the person who is said to be
aggrieved does not wish to pursue the matter, and when the
dispute itself is essentially private in nature, it would be proper to
bring end to the proceedings. Therefore, in view of the averments
made in paragraph 12 of the affidavit of respondent No.3, and
considering the overall circumstances, the criminal application
deserves to be allowed and the FIR is liable to be quashed.
7. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(b). No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
