906 WP-3309-2026.DOC skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3309 OF 2026 Devinder Devraj Ghai, Managing Partner- National Building Corporation …Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra through Khar Police Station 2. Dr. B.V. Natraj, Claiming to be Trustee of Jewel in the Lotus Trust …Respondents Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Gopal Krishna Shenoy and Varun Shah i/b Dimple Shah, for the Petitioner. Ms. Dhanalakshmi Krishnaiyer, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Juzer Udaipuri a/w. Ms. Sofia Udaipuri and Mr. Firdaus Udaipuri i/b Udaipuri & Co, for Respondent No.2. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P. C.: 1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Udaipuri,learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and Ms. Krishnaiyer, learned APP appearing for the Respondent No.1. 2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 8th May 2026 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai 3rd September, 2026 906 WP-3309-2026.DOC skt below Exhibit 1 in C.C. No. 166/Misc./2023. By the impugned order, learned Court recorded satisfaction of the existence of dispute likely to cause a breach of peace concerning the subject land and directed both Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 to submit Written Statements of their respective claims concerning the facts of actual possession of the said land. 3. It is the submission of Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel that on 6th May 2026, a praecipe is filed in the said case bearing Exhibit 15 (Page 131) by both the parties stating that there is no apprehension of breach of peace. However, immediately, thereafter, on 8th May 2026, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 filed praecipe bearing Exhibit 16 (Page 133) stating that there is an apprehension of breach of peace at any moment. He submits that, inter alia, while passing the order dated 8th May 2026, the learned Court has not considered this aspect while recording its satisfaction as contemplated under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. Although, Mr. Udaipuri, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, initially raised the contention that the Writ Petition be not 3rd September, 2026 906 WP-3309-2026.DOC skt entertained as there is an alternate remedy of revision, however, in view of the contention raised by learned Senior Counsel that the impugned order is passed without considering these two praecipes and therefore the impugned order is perverse as material on record is not taken into consideration, they, on instructions, submit that the impugned order be quashed and set aside by consent and the matter be remanded back to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for passing fresh order. 5. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel submits that the contention raised regarding alternate remedy is not correct. However, in any case, as the impugned order is perverse and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, on instructions, has given consent for setting aside the impugned order, the said aspect need not be examined in detail. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by passing following order by consent of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 : i. The order dated 8th May 2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, 3rd September, 2026 906 WP-3309-2026.DOC skt Mumbai, in C.C. No. 166/Misc./2023 (Exh. A – Pages 30– 31) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/concerned Court, for fresh consideration in accordance with law. ii. It is clarified that the impugned order is quashed and set aside only on the ground that relevant material on record is not considered and therefore, all the contentions of both the parties are expressly kept open. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 3rd September, 2026