25-WP-2402-2022 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2402 OF 2022 Rammanohar Bhagwandas Yadav ...Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Mr. R. B. Yadav, Petitioner-in-person. Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. U. V. Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.7. PSI-Ghadage (Pairavi), Meghwadi Police Station, present. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 17th JUNE, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai, dated 20th February 2021, which was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, dated 12th March 2021, whereby the private complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was rejected. 2. It is contention of petitioner party-in-person that he was the Secretary of Ramnath Cooperative Housing Society. Respondent No. 3 prepared false and forged documents and obtained membership of the SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.06.23 16:41:30 +0530 25-WP-2402-2022 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam society, and on that basis, the High Power Committee allotted a tenement to her. He challenged the said allotment and it was cancelled, but thereafter, alternate accommodation was again given to respondent No. 3, which is illegal. The documents produced by respondent No. 3 before the High Power Committee are false and fabricate, and the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge have not considered these facts and have passed erroneous impugned orders, and requested to allow the petition. 3. It is contention of learned APP that the name of respondent No. 3 was mentioned in the tenants' list of the said society. She could not initially produce documents showing her entitlement to alternate accommodation, and hence, the allotment was cancelled; but thereafter she challenged the said order before the appellate authority, and after considering all the documents, alternate accommodation was allotted to her. In the investigation, nothing was found to show that she had forged or fabricated documents. The orders passed by the Courts below are legal and valid and requested to dismiss the petition. 4. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 7-the competent authority, that the alternate accommodation was granted to respondent No. 3 on the basis of documents produced on record. The said accommodation was allotted as per procedure, and the documents produced before the competent authority were genuine. Page 2 of 4 25-WP-2402-2022 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam 5. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that the Courts below have passed valid and reasoned orders, and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. I have heard all learned counsel, perused impugned orders. While passing the order, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the grievance of the petitioner relates to the rehabilitation scheme, and the competent authority and High Power Committee allotted the alternate accommodation to respondent No. 3 on the basis of documents. These authorities are competent to set the criminal law in motion and direct registration of an offence. On that basis, the private complaint was rejected. I do not find any infirmity in it. 7. In my view, the petitioner is one of the members of the society, and no other member of the society raised any grievance regarding the forging of documents by respondent No. 3. Moreover, the competent authority and the appellate authority are the competent to verify these documents, and after verifying documents, the alternate accommodation is allotted to respondent No. 3. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered as an aggrieved party for the said allotment, as the petitioner has not been deprived of alternate accommodation. The petitioner has no locus standi to lodge 25-WP-2402-2022 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam such complaint. In view of the above, I pass the following order : O R D E R 1. Writ petition is dismissed. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)