Bombay High Court
HITEN MAHASUKHLAL SHETHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court quashed the FIR and set aside all consequent proceedings, holding that the FIR was not maintainable as it violated the procedural safeguards of Section 155 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants, developers and bonafide purchasers, challenged the registration of FIR No. 62 of 2025 under Section 21 of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975, alleging that the alleged offence was non‑cognizable and that the FIR was filed without complying with the procedural requirements of Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court examined precedents (Mukesh Laxman Das Talreja, Frank Augustin Lopes, Rahul) and held that an FIR under the Trees Act cannot be lodged unless the due‑process safeguards of Section 155 are observed. It further noted that the charge‑sheet had already been filed and that the petitioner had no involvement in the alleged violation. Consequently, the Court found the FIR to be an abuse of process and ordered it quashed along with all consequent proceedings. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of in favour of the applicants.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR filed under Section 21 of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 is maintainable when the alleged offence is non‑cognizable.
- Whether the registration of the FIR complied with the procedural requirements of Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the petitioners, as developers, can be held liable for the alleged violation of the Trees Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 155
- Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 — s. 21
Subjects
- non-cognizable offence
- FIR quash
- Section 21 Trees Act
- Section 155 CrPC
- procedural due process
- High Court of Bombay
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
29-apl-1371-26.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
URMILA by URMILA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAMOD
PRAMOD INGALE
Date:
INGALE 2026.08.24
17:31:57 +0530
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
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 4 th 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
Checking your session…