Shripad Appsaheb Bhosale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 April, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:16731-DB
                                                                                            6-wp-828-2015.doc


                           Shabnoor
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                   WRIT PETITION NO.828 OF 2015

                           Shripad Appasaheb Bhosale                       ... Petitioner
       SHABNOOR
       AYUB                           V/s.
       PATHAN
       Digitally signed
                           The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                 ... Respondents
       by SHABNOOR
       AYUB PATHAN
       Date: 2026.04.08
       15:33:37 +0530
                           Mr. Raju D. Suryawanshi, for the Petitioner.
                           Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, AGP, for the State - Respondent
                           No.1.
                           Mr. Baban Bande, ASI, Crime Branch Unit - 4,
                           Ulhasnagar, Thane is present.


                                                           CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                           DATED    : APRIL 8, 2026
                           P.C.:

1. The present petition emanates from the registration of First Information Report bearing No. 208 of 2012 dated 17th July 2012 with Manpada Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Pursuant to the said registration, Charge-sheet No. 207 of 2012 came to be filed, which has culminated into Regular Criminal Case No. 665 of 2012. The said criminal case is presently pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 3rd Court at Kalyan.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition, in brief, is that Respondent No. 2 was, at the relevant time, serving as a Circle Officer having jurisdiction over five sajas, namely Thakurli,

6-wp-828-2015.doc

Dombivali, Chole, Ayre and Bhopar, along with eighteen villages as referred to in the First Information Report. It is alleged that, pursuant to a communication dated 30th April 2012 issued by the Senior Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Ulhasnagar, an order dated 2nd May 2012 passed by the Collector, Thane, and a letter dated 13th March 2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Kalyan, concerning verification of a Non-Agricultural order, Respondent No. 2 undertook a survey and enquiry in respect of Gurcharan land bearing Survey No. 71 situated at Nandivali, Village No. Part Hissa Tarfe Panchanand, Taluka Kalyan.

3. It is further alleged that, during the course of the said enquiry, it transpired that out of the total Gurcharan land admeasuring 4 Hectares 84 Ares and 4 Gunthas, a portion admeasuring 10 Ares had been falsely reflected in the name of one Razzaq Yakub Shaikh by preparing a fabricated 7/12 extract dated 23rd February 2012. It is further the case of the prosecution that the said Razzaq Yakub Shaikh executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 23rd December 2011 and a Deed of Confirmation bearing Registration No. 10900 of 2011 of the same date, and on the basis thereof conferred development rights upon Shri Jehangir Mafizul Shaikh, Proprietor of Universal Builder.

4. It is further alleged that the said developer, acting in collusion with the aforesaid Razzaq Yakub Shaikh, proceeded to construct a ground plus four-storeyed building on the said land and thereafter sold Flat No. 303 situated on the third floor, admeasuring approximately 466 square feet, to one I. Somsundaram for a total consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- by

6-wp-828-2015.doc

executing a registered Agreement for Sale dated 30th March 2012 bearing Registration No. 2317 of 2012. It is alleged that, in the course of the said transaction, the accused annexed a xerox copy of a Non-Agricultural order dated 25th July 2007 purportedly issued by the Collector, Thane.

5. It is further alleged that, upon verification and comparison of the said Non-Agricultural order with the official records maintained in the office of the Tahsildar, Thane, the said document was found to be forged and fabricated. Likewise, the 7/12 extract relied upon by the accused persons was also found to be bogus. On this basis, it is alleged that the said Razzaq Yakub Shaikh, by preparing and using such forged documents, dishonestly induced and cheated the Government, thereby causing wrongful loss estimated at approximately Rs. 90,00,000/-. It is on the strength of these allegations that the First Information Report came to be registered with Manpada Police Station.

6. Pursuant to the registration of the said First Information Report, the Investigating Officer proceeded to record statements of witnesses and, upon completion of investigation, filed Charge- sheet No. 207 of 2012 against the principal accused as well as the present petitioner. The said charge-sheet has resulted in Regular Criminal Case No. 665 of 2012, which is presently pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 3rd Court, Kalyan. The present petitioner has been arraigned therein as Accused No. 3.

7. Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme

6-wp-828-2015.doc

Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayana Rao, 2013 AIR (SC) (Cri) 448, submitted that the mere issuance of an incorrect title certificate, in the absence of any further incriminating material, would not ipso facto attract criminal liability. It was contended that such issuance constitutes an act performed in the ordinary course of professional duties. He further submitted that the principal allegations pertaining to forgery and fraud are directed against Accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are alleged to have fabricated documents with a view to falsely project themselves as owners of the subject immovable property, which, in fact, belongs to the Government.

8. It was further submitted that the only allegation attributed to the present petitioner is that he issued a title certificate on the basis of a 7/12 extract, which is now alleged to be forged, and that he accepted a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards issuance of such certificate. According to the prosecution, the said search report and title certificate are false and fabricated. On this basis, it is alleged that the petitioner acted in conspiracy with the co-accused and thereby committed offences punishable under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

9. The learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the act attributed to the petitioner, as borne out from the contents of the title certificate, was founded upon documents placed before him, including the 7/12 extract, an order purportedly issued by the Talathi under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and entries reflected in the search report indicating development agreements and a power

6-wp-828-2015.doc

of attorney. It was submitted that the petitioner relied upon the said documents in discharge of his professional duties and had no role whatsoever in their alleged fabrication. In such circumstances, it was urged that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

10. Per contra, Mr. Walve, learned APP, opposed the petition and contended that issuance of a title certificate in respect of Government land, certifying ownership in favour of a private individual, prima facie indicates the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. It was submitted that a professional issuing such a certificate is expected to exercise due diligence and necessary precautions, and such responsibility cannot be diluted merely on the ground of an alleged error of judgment.

11. The learned APP further submitted that such a certificate creates a misleading impression in the public domain that the property is privately owned, whereas in reality it vests in the Government. It was contended that on the strength of such certification, members of the public are induced to invest in developments undertaken by Accused Nos. 1 and 2. On these premises, it was submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. The present petition deserves to be allowed. The record shows that the petitioner is dragged into the present crime mainly because he issued a title certificate and search report on the basis of documents which were then shown to him. The prosecution case against the petitioner is not that he himself prepared the

6-wp-828-2015.doc

forged 7/12 extract, or that he himself changed the revenue record, or that he himself created the false N.A. order. The main role of fabrication, forgery and unlawful development is attributed to Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner is brought in only on the footing that he gave a certificate which, according to the prosecution, turned out to be incorrect.

13. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that the petitioner was acting as a professional while issuing the title certificate. His submission is that the certificate was prepared on the basis of the revenue papers and other documents placed before him, including the 7/12 extract, the order said to have been issued under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, and the material reflected in the search report. It is also the case of the petitioner that there is no material to show that he had any hand in preparing those documents, or that he was a party to the alleged fabrication. In criminal law, mere incorrect opinion or wrong certificate by itself does not always create criminal liability. There must be material showing conscious participation, knowledge, or a clear link with the unlawful design.

14. The prosecution, on the other hand, has argued that the petitioner issued a title certificate in respect of Government land as if it was private property, and that such certification misled purchasers and members of the public. The learned APP has submitted that a professional is expected to act with due care and diligence, and that an error in such a sensitive matter cannot be lightly treated. There is no doubt that a professional has a duty to be careful. But the issue before this Court is not whether the

6-wp-828-2015.doc

petitioner was perfectly careful. The issue is whether the material on record shows that he committed a criminal offence. That distinction is important. Negligence, if any, is not the same thing as criminal conspiracy or cheating.

15. The Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayana Rao has clearly explained that an offence of criminal conspiracy depends upon an agreement between the persons alleged to conspire. Such agreement may be proved by direct evidence or by strong circumstantial evidence. But there must be material showing that the acts were done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement. Mere suspicion is not enough. Mere inference without acceptable evidence is not enough. This principle is of direct application here. In the present case, I do not find any material showing that the petitioner joined hands with Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the preparation of forged documents or in the creation of a false title.

16. The same decision also makes it clear that where an advocate or professional renders opinion in the ordinary course of duties, criminal prosecution cannot be permitted merely because the opinion later turns out to be wrong. The Court has emphasized that a professional is expected to exercise reasonable competence, not perfection. If there is no material showing active participation in the fraudulent plan, criminal liability cannot be fastened. At the highest, the matter may raise an issue of professional lapse or negligence. But even for that, there must be some proper foundation. A criminal case cannot be allowed to continue on a loose assumption that because a document later became suspect,

6-wp-828-2015.doc

every person who had once relied on it must also be guilty.

17. Here the petitioner's case is supported by the very nature of the duty performed by him. A title certificate is usually based on papers produced before the professional, search entries, revenue records, and other relevant documents. It is not the prosecution case that the petitioner had himself prepared the forged 7/12 extract, or had himself issued the false N.A. order, or had any personal benefit from the alleged land fraud. The only circumstance pressed against him is that he issued a certificate and received Rs. 2,500/- for that work. That fact alone does not make him a conspirator. Payment of professional fees, by itself, cannot be treated as evidence of dishonest design.

18. The prosecution has tried to argue that the certificate created a false impression in the market and helped Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to sell the flat and attract purchasers. Even if that is so, the prosecution must still show a live connection between the petitioner and the fraudulent intention. There is no such material placed before this Court. No witness statement, no document, and no circumstance has been pointed out to show that the petitioner knew the documents were forged, or that he had any prior meeting of mind with the main accused, or that he stood to gain from the sale transaction. Without such material, the allegation remains a suspicion, not proof.

19. The law does not permit a criminal case to proceed on broad and general allegations alone. The criminal process cannot be used to punish a person merely because his opinion or certificate may

6-wp-828-2015.doc

have turned out to be mistaken. If the petitioner had failed to exercise proper care, that may perhaps have civil or professional consequences depending on proof. But criminal prosecution is a different matter. For that, the record must show mens rea, participation, or at least a clear and acceptable chain of circumstances pointing to guilty knowledge. That chain is absent here.

20. The Court is also conscious that the allegations against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are of a different and more direct nature. They are said to have fabricated documents, projected Government land as private land, developed the property, and sold flats to third parties. Those allegations, if proved, may stand on their own footing. But the petitioner cannot be roped in merely because his certificate was one of the papers used in the transaction. The prosecution must show why he should be treated as part of the unlawful design. That foundation is missing.

21. After considering the submissions of both sides and the material referred to before this Court, I am satisfied that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. The allegations, even if accepted in full, do not disclose the necessary ingredients of conspiracy or cheating against him. The material does not show that he had any role in fabrication of the revenue documents or in the creation of the false title. The case against him, at best, suggests a possible professional lapse. That is not enough for criminal prosecution in the facts of this case.

6-wp-828-2015.doc

22. For these reasons, the petition deserves to succeed. The criminal proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 665 of 2012, insofar as they relate to the present petitioner, are quashed and set aside.

23. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

24. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)