Bombay High Court

MAYA RAJESH BHATT AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Holding

The High Court held that, due to the absence of evidentiary material linking the Applicants to the alleged offences and the settlement of the underlying dispute, the process orders against them must be quashed.

Summary

The Applicants, office bearers of a cooperative housing society, were charged under IPC sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) for allegedly forging the signatures of a society member (Respondent No.2) on resolutions that granted parking and other benefits to a builder. Respondent No.2 later settled with the builder, receiving parking slots and possession of his flat, and withdrew his complaint against the builder. The Applicants argued that no loss was caused to Respondent No.2 and that the magistrate and sessions courts failed to consider this settlement and the lack of evidence. The High Court examined the complaint, noted the three‑year delay, the absence of any material evidence linking the Applicants to the alleged offences, and the fact that the matter had been settled. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, quashed the Sessions Court’s order and set aside the issue process order of the magistrate. The decision rests on the principle that criminal process cannot be sustained without sufficient evidence and that settlement does not excuse the need for proof of guilt.

Issues considered

Whether the process order against the Applicants under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC can be sustained in view of the lack of evidence.
Whether the settlement between Respondent No.2 and the builder affects the viability of the criminal complaint against the Applicants.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

forgery
cheating
criminal conspiracy
cooperative housing society
quash of criminal process
settlement
IPC sections
parking allocation

Judgment

5-APL-1817-2019.doc

N.S.Kamble

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1817 OF 2019

Maya Rajesh Bhatt and Ors … Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr … Respondents
____________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
NILAM
by NILAM
SANTOSH
Dr.Uday P. Warunjikar a/w Ms.Aishwarya R. Tuwar i/b Mr.Aditya P.
SANTOSH KAMBLE Kharkhar, for the Applicants.
KAMBLE Date:
2026.03.07
10:20:52 +0530 Mr.P.P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr.Vaibhav Parab, for Respondent No.2.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY 2026

P.C. :

. The challenge in this Application is the order dated 7th

November 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai below

Exhibit-2 thereby confirming the order dated 13th December 2016,

passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9 th Court,

Bandra, Mumbai, issuing process against the Applicants under Sections

420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal

Code (‘IPC’ for short).

2. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicants that

Page 1 of 5
5-APL-1817-2019.doc

N.S.Kamble

the Applicants were office bearers of the Madhu Park Co-operative

Housing Society Limited (‘Society’ for short). The redevelopment plan

of the said society was approved by the Municipal Corporation after

thorough inspection. Respondent No.2/Original Complainant was

Secretary of the said Society. He later resigned from the Secretaryship.

3. It is alleged that the Applicants and original Accused Nos.1 to

3 flagrantly changed the building plans and forged the signatures of

Respondent No.2 and his wife on resolutions dated 4 th July 2013 and 12th

August 2013.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that, in fact,

Respondent No.2 has settled the matter with the builder/ Accused Nos.1

to 3 and he is using parking and other facilities. The Respondent No.2

has received the possession of the flat, so by the said resolutions, no loss

has been caused to Respondent No.2. The said resolutions were passed

in the interest of the society. The allegations attracting the provisions of

the IPC are not made out against the Applicants, but this fact is not

considered by the learned Magistrate nor the Sessions Court and

requested to allow the Application.

5. It is contention of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2

Page 2 of 5
5-APL-1817-2019.doc

N.S.Kamble

that Applicant Nos.1 to 3 were office bearers of the society, where the

Respondent No.2 owns the flat. The Applicants have passed two

resolutions behind the back of Respondent No.2. In the said resolutions,

signatures of the Respondent No.2 and his wife were forged by the

Applicants. It shows prima facie case against them. To prove that the

Applicants were not involved in the crime, trial is required. The learned

Magistrate Court and Sessions Court have passed well-reasoned order, no

interference is required in it and requested to reject the Application.

6. The learned APP submits that appropriate order be passed.

7. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned orders.

8. The Respondent No.2 has filed private complaint against

original Accused Nos.1 to 3 builder/developer of the said society alleging

that in his absence, Applicants in connivance with each other, passed

resolutions on behalf of the society pertaining to the administration of the

society, thereby giving advantage to the builder to access car parking space

and allot the same illegally, which never belonged to the Developer and

belonged to the Society, since inception of the building. In order to

proceed with the re-development, with an ulterior motive to deceive

Respondent No.2, they have forged his signature and his wife's signature

Page 3 of 5
5-APL-1817-2019.doc

N.S.Kamble

on the resolutions dated 4.7.2013 and 12.8.2013 passed by the society

which he and his wife never signed. It is alleged that the resolutions are

forged and fabricated and originals are in the custody of the Committee

and/or the builder. A detailed investigation is humbly prayed for to

ascertain the offence committed and bring out the truth. It is alleged that

the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the Applicants have committed the

offence of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and criminal

conspiracy in connivance with each other to ensure wrongful gain to them

and wrongful loss to Respondent No.2. In the complaint, it is stated that

as a member of the society, Respondent No.2 is entitled to his

proportionate share of the amount and equivalent area of the new flats in

proposed construction as a matter of right.

9. Admittedly the Respondent No.2 has settled the matter with

builder/Accused Nos.1 to 3, against whom same allegations were levelled

like the Applicants, and complaint against them has been withdrawn by

the Respondent No.2. Perused impugned resolutions, it appears that in

these resolutions, the issue relating to parking space and share certificate

is mentioned. The Respondent No.2 has settled the matter with the

builder. The Consent Terms filed between the Respondent No.2 and

Page 4 of 5
5-APL-1817-2019.doc

N.S.Kamble

Builder/Accused Nos.1 to 3 are taken on record and it is marked ‘x’ for

identification. From the Consent Terms, it appears that Respondent

No.2 has received two parking slots and possession of his flat. There is

delay of more than three years to file the complaint. Though there are

allegations made against the Applicants under Sections 420, 465, 467,

468, 471 read with Section 120(B) of the IPC, but there is no evidence

produced on record to make out applicability of these Sections against

the Applicants but these facts are not considered by Courts below.

10. In view of above, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Application is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 7th November 2019
passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1250 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The issue process order passed by the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court,
Bandra, Mumbai in CC No.174/SW/2016 against the
Applicants is quashed and set aside.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…