RAMMANOHAR BHAGWANDAS YADAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                        25-WP-2402-2022 (CR).doc


                      Shubhada S Kadam


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2402 OF 2022

                      Rammanohar Bhagwandas Yadav                           ...Petitioner
                      versus
                      The State of Maharashtra and ors.                     ...Respondents
                      _________________________________________________________________

                      Mr. R. B. Yadav, Petitioner-in-person.
                      Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                      Mr. U. V. Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
                      Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
                      PSI-Ghadage (Pairavi), Meghwadi Police Station, present.
                      _________________________________________________________________

                                                          CORAM     :   SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                                          DATE      :   17th JUNE, 2026.
                      P.C. :

                      1.         The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order passed

                      by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri,

                      Mumbai, dated 20th February 2021, which was confirmed by the learned

                      Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, dated 12th March

                      2021, whereby the private complaint filed by the petitioner under Section

                      156(3) of the CrPC was rejected.

                      2.         It is contention of petitioner party-in-person that he was the

         Digitally
                      Secretary of Ramnath Cooperative Housing Society. Respondent No. 3
         signed by
         SHUBHADA
SHUBHADA SHANKAR
SHANKAR KADAM
KADAM    Date:        prepared false and forged documents and obtained membership of the
         2026.06.23
         16:41:30
         +0530




                                                     Page 1 of 4
                                                   25-WP-2402-2022 (CR).doc


Shubhada S Kadam


society, and on that basis, the High Power Committee allotted a tenement

to her. He challenged the said allotment and it was cancelled, but

thereafter, alternate accommodation was again given to respondent No. 3,

which is illegal. The documents produced by respondent No. 3 before the

High Power Committee are false and fabricate, and the learned Magistrate

and the learned Sessions Judge have not considered these facts and have

passed erroneous impugned orders, and requested to allow the petition.

3.         It is contention of learned APP that the name of respondent

No. 3 was mentioned in the tenants' list of the said society. She could not

initially produce documents showing her entitlement to alternate

accommodation, and hence, the allotment was cancelled; but thereafter

she challenged the said order before the appellate authority, and after

considering all the documents, alternate accommodation was allotted to

her. In the investigation, nothing was found to show that she had forged or

fabricated documents. The orders passed by the Courts below are legal and

valid and requested to dismiss the petition.

4.         It is contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 7-the

competent authority, that the alternate accommodation was granted to

respondent No. 3 on the basis of documents produced on record. The said

accommodation was allotted as per procedure, and the documents

produced before the competent authority were genuine.

                                 Page 2 of 4
                                                           25-WP-2402-2022 (CR).doc


Shubhada S Kadam




5.          It is contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that the

Courts below have passed valid and reasoned orders, and requested to

dismiss the writ petition.

6.          I have heard all learned counsel, perused impugned orders.

While passing the order, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the

grievance of the petitioner relates to the rehabilitation scheme, and the

competent authority and High Power Committee allotted the alternate

accommodation to respondent No. 3 on the basis of documents. These

authorities are competent to set the criminal law in motion and direct

registration of an offence. On that basis, the private complaint was

rejected. I do not find any infirmity in it.

7.          In my view, the petitioner is one of the members of

the   society,   and     no   other    member       of   the   society   raised   any

grievance regarding the forging of documents by respondent No. 3.

Moreover, the competent authority and the appellate authority are

the   competent     to    verify   these     documents,        and   after   verifying

documents, the alternate accommodation is allotted to respondent No. 3.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered as an aggrieved party

for the said allotment, as the petitioner has not been deprived of

alternate accommodation. The petitioner has no locus standi to lodge

                                      Page 3 of 4
                                                     25-WP-2402-2022 (CR).doc


Shubhada S Kadam


such complaint. In view of the above, I pass the following order :

                                  ORDER

     1.   Writ petition is dismissed.




                                               (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                 Page 4 of 4