hcs 1/3 24.w2610.18.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2610 OF 2018 Nitesh Murli Khatwani … Petitioner V/s. Senior Police Inspector & Ors. … Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mr. S. R. Agarkar APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ. DATE : 4th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C:- 1) None for the Petitioner. The Petition seek a relief of registration of an FIR by the Competent Authority since the Petitioner preferred a complaint on 24/04/2018 to the Commissioner of Police, Thane District and other officers of Ulhasnagar as well as the Tax Department, Tahsildar, Sub- Divisional Officer, Taluka Land Record of the City Survey as well as Sub- Registrar of Ulhasnagar. The complaint preferred by him on 24/04/2018 against ten named persons consisted of a request to register offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code alongwith 13(1)(c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2025.11.11 10:12:35 +0300 hcs 2/3 24.w2610.18.doc 2) Since none represented the Petitioner, with the able assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor, we perused the complaint and we find it to be interesting as the complaint begin with a declaration that the complainant is a peace loving and law abiding citizen and social worker by work and a reporter. He has attempted to invite attention of the noticees, 17 in number about the alleged fraud in relation to a property situated in the limits of Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and he has tracked the history of the said property with an allegation that it originally belongs to M/s. Ranas Trading Company but pose a question as to how one Jogindersingh Hakimsingh executed a Will of the company property in the name of his legal heirs. The complaint also alleges that Jogindersingh Hakimsingh expired on 6/03/2009 and how he could have given a statement before the Taluka Land Record office in the year 2012. The complainant at the culmination of the notice state that all the persons named by him had encroached the Government land due to which the Revenue Department would suffer huge loss on the wrongful act of the aforesaid persons and despite he having complained to the Government department from time to time, no cognizance have been taken. 3) At the outset, we must note that as far as a criminal offence is concerned, the person who make a complaint or grievance must be directly or indirectly affected by the alleged act of a person whom he describes as hcs 3/3 24.w2610.18.doc an accused but in the present complaint, we find it that nexus to be completely lacking. The complainant has shown concern about the loss being suffered by the Government and it is rather a cause for public interest and if he was so desirous or wanted to save the Government of its exchequer, he ought have taken steps by filing a Public Interest Litigation or such appropriate proceedings as could have been advised. Merely by throwing a complaint at the concerned officers being 17 in number, against the private persons and asking initiation of action against them under the I.P.C. as well as under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not a sufficient justification for seeking a relief of mandamus for registration of the FIR on the basis of the said complaint. In any case we find that the Petitioner, himself is not interested in prosecuting the Petition and that is reason why the Petition was never circulated after 2018, and even today, when it has appeared before us, the Petitioner is not represented. Hence, left with no other alternative and finding any merit and substance, we dismiss the Writ Petition. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)