29-apl-1371-26.doc Urmila Ingale IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1371 OF 2026 Hiten Mahasukhlal Sheth and anr. .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Ayush Pasbola a/w Mr. Sankalp Vichare, Advocates for Applicants.  Mr. Sukant Karmakar, APP for Respondent-State.  Mr. Yogesh Mhatre, for Respondent No.2 (On VC).  Mr.Raju Ananda Bhamare, PSI, Uttan Sagari Police Station, present. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 21, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Pasbola, learned Advocate for Applicants and Ms.Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent-State. 2. On 14th August 2026, the following order was passed : “1. Heard Mr. Pasbola, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for State. 2. Learned APP is directed to consider the decisions in the case of Mukesh Laxman Das Talreja v. The Inspector of Police Kasturba Marg Police Station 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 459; Frank Augustin Lopes v. State of Maharashtra 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 6851 and Rahul v. State of Maharashtra Judgment dated 15.12.2025 Cri. Application No. 1689 of 2024 (Nagpur Bench) and accordingly apprise the Court as to whether in view of the charge levied against the Petitioners, the said FIR is maintainable or otherwise. Prima facie on reading of the said decisions, it is seen that insofar as the provisions of Section 21 of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 having been invoked against the Petitioners, the said FIR is not maintainable. Said FIR can only be filed after 1 of 3 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Digitally signed by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date: 2026.08.24 17:31:57 +0530 29-apl-1371-26.doc following the due procedure of law as contemplated under the provisions of Section 155 of Cr.PC. 3. Today none appears for Respondent No. 2. It is clarified that if Respondent No. 2 does not remain present on the next adjourned date, present Application will be heard and proceeded in accordance with law. 4. Stand over to 21st August, 2026.” 3. The hearing is proceeded further. Prima facie it is seen that the present crime is a non-cognizable offence in nature and registration of the FIR without following the due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of Section 155 of the CrPC and without giving notice to the Petitioner in accordance with law, is a gross abuse of the due process of law. The decisions of this Court which are laid down the law which is settled and no longer res integra have been stated in the previous order. They squarely applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Despite notwithstanding the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed, the present proceedings are required to be set aside. Respondent No.2 is appearing online as informed but the Court cannot see him. The Petitioner being a bonafide purchaser, prima facie and otherwise has no involvement in the present offence. He is a Developer. Conveyance deed is registered after making all due compliance without any directions in law including that of giving the public notice about the said transaction. The Respondent No.2 has already initiated civil proceedings against the Petitioner-Developer which is pending in the civil court. Even 2 of 3 29-apl-1371-26.doc otherwise, the filing of the present FIR is contrary to the provisions of law. Since Section 21 of the Maharashtra (Urban Area) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 having been invoked and non- compliance of the provisions of Section 155 of CrPC, I am inclined to allow the present Petition. It is seen that charge-sheet has been filed on 03.07.2025 and the plea has already been recorded on 25.11.2025. The present Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus: “b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 62 of 2025, registered with Uttan Sagari, and all consequent proceedings arising out of it viz. S.C.C No. 7369 of 2025, pending on the file of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mira Bhayandar against the Applicants.” 4. The Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Urmila Ingale [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 3 of 3