48.WP.5317.2021.doc HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5317 OF 2024 Preyash Shashikant Nanavati .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Ayush Pasbola a/w. Mr. Sankalp Vichare, Advocates for Petitioner.  Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1 – State. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Pasbola, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms. Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State. 2. Respondent No.2 is not present despite being served. Advocate for the Petitioner has filed Affidavit-of-Service dated 25.08.2026 stating that notice of today’s hearing has been served on Respondent No.2 and same is perused by the Court. 3. Petitioner is indicted as Accused No.12 in the present case in complaint filed by the Complainant. Admitted facts which emanate from the record is that Petitioner is in possession of land bearing Survey No.15 / 1 situated in Mira-Bhayander area of Mumbai since 2008 as its owner pursuant to a registered Conveyance Deed. He had purchased the said land from Anita S. Almeida (also an Accused) who sold the land to him on the basis of a Power of Attorney in her favour 1 of 6 48.WP.5317.2021.doc from the original owner on 29.04.2008. The private Complainant has filed a compliant on 24.08.2024 with the Uttan Sagari Police Station bearing C.R.No.81 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 199, 200 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 wherein she has indicted 12 Accused persons and Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.12. 4. The case of Complainant is that the subject land Survey No.15/01 in village – Bhayander, Vasai – Virar region belonged to Complainant’s maternal great grandfather Pendru Mates Fernan alias Fernandes who had expired on 14.01.1927. The case of Complainant is that until the year 2008, the said land in the revenue record stood in the name of the great grandfather and her sister and the constituted Power of Attorney had no right to sell it to Petitioner and his associate. 5. According to the Complainant by virtue of the successive transfers on the basis of the Gift Deed notwithstanding the mutation entry entered to that effect, Petitioner (Accused No.12) acquired and got the subject property transferred to his name from the Constituted Power of Attorney surreptitiously. Petitioner has also given reference to a Memorandum of Understanding executed by the said Anita S. Almeida who is arraigned as Accused No.6 with the other Accused persons in the year 2007 i.e. prior to Petitioner’s transfer. 6. There is a reference given to an Agreement for Sale executed 2 of 6 48.WP.5317.2021.doc in January – 2008 between the Petitioner and Accused No.6 – said Anita Almeida who is the Power of Attorney holder of Accused Nos.1 to 5. The subject land is also covered under the registered Conveyance Deed between the parties dated 02.05.2008 and thereafter the Petitioner and one Hiten Mansukhlal Sheth purchased the said property by a registered Conveyance Deed for consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- paid to the said Constituted Power of Attorney. 7. In view of the above, other family members of Respondent No.2 have filed Regular Civil Suit No.1583 of 2025 before the Civil Judge Junior Division in the Civil Court which is pending. The Complainant is also made a party Defendant to the said Civil Suit proceedings. Considering the aforesaid timeline and the substantive rights of the parties in the subject land whether they would devolve upon them by virtue of operation of law by virtue of registered documents / Deed of Conveyance and / or gift deed, it will undoubtedly and exclusively decided in the Civil Suit pending in the Civil Court. 8. Respondent No.2 infact filed Application under Order – I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the said Civil Suit. Respondent No.2 has also been arraigned as party Defendant therein. The copy of First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) is appended at page No.16 and when read at page Nos.21 to 24, it is seen that no 3 of 6 48.WP.5317.2021.doc specific role whatsoever is attributed to the Petitioner before me. The FIR is also devoid of mentioning the suit proceedings which was filed prior to filing of the FIR. Rights of the parties in regard to the subject suit land before me namely Petitioner will be governed by the registered documentary transactions and documents or by operation of law. As on today Petitioner is in physical possession of the said Suit land. 9. Even otherwise, if FIR is read, according to Respondent No.2 – Complainant, the rights on the family members of the original owner of the land has been devolved by the virtue of succession and gift deed and if that be the case, the said right will have to be fructified by the concerned parties in appropriate civil proceedings which they have filed. If right of the Petitioner is hampered by virtue of he having purchased the subject land by a registered Deed of Conveyance in the year 2008, it shall also be open to the Complainant to approach the Civil Court and seek injunctive relief in accordance with law or file a counter claim in the subsisting Suit proceeding. 10. There is absolutely no criminality whatsoever involved in the FIR which is filed, which is nothing but sheer abuse of the due process of law and has been filed as pressure tactic. Continuation of the present criminal proceedings in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case would be unfair to the parties, namely Petitioner 4 of 6 48.WP.5317.2021.doc and co-purchaser who have been in possession of the subject land since the year - 2008 pursuant to a registered Deed of Conveyance after paying consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. 11. Filing of FIR in the year 2024 itself shows that it is fraught with delay and laches considering that the subject land being in possession of the Petitioner and co-accused Hiten Sheth would never have been kept under wraps since the year 2008 onwards. This is all the more reason to consider the present Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings. There is no element of criminality involved in the present case which can be seen and the entire dispute is of a purely civil nature. 12. With the able assistance of Mr. Pasbola and Ms. Newton, I have perused the entire material which is appended to the present Petition. Substantive documentary evidence in the form of Deed of Conveyance, Power of Attorney and receipts of payment have been appended qua the subject property. Suit by the parties is already pending before Civil Court which is all the more reason that the present Petition deserves to be allowed. Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) qua the Petitioner before the Court which reads thus:- “b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.81 of 2024 and all consequent proceedings arising out of it viz., R.C.C.No.860 of 2025, pending on the file of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mira Bhayandar.” 5 of 6 48.WP.5317.2021.doc 13. It is clarified that the above First Information Report No.81 of 2024 and all consequent proceedings arising out of C.R.No.860 of 2025 are quashed qua Accused No.12 (Petitioner) only. 14. With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 6 of 6 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.08.28 11:34:33 +0530