3. WP 4996-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4496 OF 2026 Yusuf Ibhrahim Sopariwala .Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr. Rajendra Rathod a/w. Mr. Sohail Ahmed, Advocates, for the Petitioner Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State Mr. Sunil R. Pandey, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2/Complainant CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 24.09.2026 P. C. 1. Heard Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Palkar, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State and Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/Complainant. 2. The Petitioner before me is a partner in a partnership firm along with the Complainant/Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner is 75% share holder, whereas the Respondent No. 2/Complainant is 25% share holder. They have undertaken a re-development project in Mumbai ten years ago. Dispute had arisen between them with regard to two specific tenancies which the Respondent No.2/Complainant claims were alleged to have been purchased from the incumbents/tenants in the Anand 1 of 5 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.29 21:21:52 +0530 3. WP 4996-2026.doc said building. The Annexure-II has already been finalized by the Competent Authority more than nine years ago. It is the case of the Respondent No.2/Complainant that he has purchased the twin tenancies because of this, the dispute has arisen. In that case, the remedy of the Complainant lies before the Competent Authority or otherwise in Civil proceedings. Filing the present complaint for cheating and forgery is nothing but sheer abuse of the due process of law, as can be seen from the material which is placed on record. Further, the Respondent No. 2/Complainant has already invoked arbitration proceedings with regard to the dispute emanating from the Deed of Partnership between the parties. Once that is done and an order dated 10.09.2026 is passed in Arbitration Application (L) No. 30274 of 2026 filed by the Respondent No.2/Complainant as Petitioner therein is placed before me, there is no reason as to why the present complaint can be allowed to be prosecuted further. 3. Per contra, Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/Complainant would, however, submit that a case is made out and cognizance has been taken by the Court of the offence of cheating and forgery and therefore, it will have to be taken to its logical end. This proposition is argued in a dictatorial fashion by the learned Advocate, attempting to dictate to this Court as to what the future cause of action Anand 2 of 5 3. WP 4996-2026.doc should be in this case. This Court is prima facie aware as to how such matters are to be dealt with and the Court does not require the dictatorial authority of the lawyers who attempt to dictate to the Court as to what the Court should do. In the present case, once it is clearly noted by the Court as adhered hereinabove and the dispute between the parties clearly emanates from the Agreements with the particular tenants which are part and parcel of the dispute regarding re-development, then the spoils of the said re-development qua the two incumbents’ rooms will go to the person, who has the authority in law to claim the same and it cannot be settled by filing Criminal proceedings which is sought to be done by the Respondent No.2/Complainant before me. The stand taken by the Respondent No.2/Complainant that there is forgery and cheating committed by the Petitioner prima facie is clearly insignificant altogether in view of the Complainant’s own acts of filing arbitration proceedings as also the fact that he has not taken any steps whatsoever qua and with the Competent Authority with regard to amendment of the Annexure-II. The filing of the FIR in the present case is nothing but a sheer abuse of the due process of law which has been done in a case, where the dispute between the parties has to be resolved by resorting to Civil remedy as available to them in accordance with law under the relevant Anand 3 of 5 3. WP 4996-2026.doc statute. In that view of the matter, Mr. Rathod has made out a clear case for grant of the present Petition. The Writ Petition, therefore, stands allowed. 4. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to give effect to any order in the Court, prevent abuse of process of any Court or secure the ends of justice. In the BNSS this provision stands incorporated with Section 528 which substantially reproduces the language and intent of Section 482 of the CRPC, 1973 High Courts invoke this provision to step in where cases have been instituted with malafide motives or to harass the accused person thereby avoiding procedural harassment. It empowers Court to dismiss FIRs or criminal proceedings if there is no prima facie case or evidence against the accused person/s or if orders are made in violation of the principles of natural justice. The exercise of such powers under Section 482 of CRPC and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies from case to case. 5. In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal1 the Supreme Court laid down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the said judgment in which the FIRs can be quashed. The Supreme Court has further asserted that power under Section 482 is an acknowledgment 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 4 of 5 3. WP 4996-2026.doc of "powers inherent" and not the source of powers additional. It has held that even non compoundable offences can be quashed where necessary. It has held that High Courts have to decide whether the prosecution of an offence would further or be against the interest of justice. It is also held that grievous offences such as murder, rape, and dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement because they involve societal implication. 6. In view of the above matter, the present Petition deserves to be allowed. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which read thus:- “a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR bearing No. 92 of 2026 dated 02.02.2026 registered with Pydhonie Police Station under section 3(5), 340(2), 336(3), 336(2) and 318(4) of the BNS Act on any terms and Condition as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper.” 7. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. 8. The FIR is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, any Charge-sheet issued thereafter is also quashed and set aside. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 5 of 5