Bombay High Court
DATTA KISANRAO HATHKADKE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
An investigating officer under the MPID Act cannot, by himself, issue a notice to freeze or prohibit transfer of immovable property without a competent authority or court order, and such a notice issued without notice and hearing is ultra vires and must be quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, who purchased portions of Gut No. 127 in Jalna, sought to quash a communication dated 16‑06‑2025 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Economic Wing) directing the Sub Registrar to prohibit further transfer of the land. They argued that they were not accused under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, 1999, and that the officer lacked authority under Section 4 of the Act to issue such a notice, violating natural justice. The respondents contended that one co‑owner, Chandulal Biyani, was the main accused in a fraud case under the MPID Act and that the notice was necessary to protect depositors’ interests. The Court examined prior judgments and held that an investigating officer cannot unilaterally attach or freeze immovable property without a competent authority or court order, and that the notice was issued without notice or hearing, breaching Article 300A. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned communication and allowed the petition, while noting that the competent authority may still act against the actual accused in accordance with the MPID Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as an investigating officer under the MPID Act, is empowered to issue a communication directing the Sub Registrar to prohibit transfer of immovable property.
- Whether the issuance of the communication without notice and hearing violates the principles of natural justice and Article 300A of the Constitution.
- Whether the communication can be quashed despite the existence of an accused who allegedly used the property to further the alleged fraud.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- natural justice
- attachment of property
- MPID Act
- quashing order
- investigative powers
- property rights
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:21163-DB
(1)
Cri.W. 298-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 298 OF 2026
1. Datta S/o Kisanrao Hathkadke
Age : 40 Years, Occ. Business
R/o. Shanti Nagar, Mantha,
Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna.
2. Shaikh Junaid Shaikh Jalil
Age : 38 Years, Occ. Business
3. Shaikh Sajed Shaikh Jalil
Age : 56 Years, Occ. Business,
Both are R/o Jalil Colony, Mantha,
Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai-32.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Superintendent of Police Office,
Jalna.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Economic Wing, Latur
4. The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office, Mantha,
Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna ..RESPONDENTS
….
Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. Krushna S. Solanke
A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State : Mrs. Chaitali R.
Choudhari/Kutti.
…..
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 07.05.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 08.05.2026
(2)
Cri.W. 298-2026.odt
JUDGMENT (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. at the stage of admission .
2. By invoking Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the impugned
order/communication dated 16.06.2025, issued by
respondent No.3 i.e. Dy. Superintendent of Police (Economic
Wing), Latur in violation of principle of natural justice and
contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999
(for short “MPID Act”).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have purchased land Gut No. 127 under various
sale deeds along with other persons from the original owners
namely Sumanbai Indrajeet Hathkadke, Ramkuwar Indrajeet
Hathkadke and others. However, when they intended to sale
the said property, they got the knowledge form respondent
No.4 vide letter dated 06.02.2026, that respondent No.3 had
already issued impugned communication, thereby directing
respondent No.4/the Sub Registrar, Mantha to prohibit
further transfer of the property Gut No.127 situated at
(3)
Cri.W. 298-2026.odt
Manta, District Jalna. The learned counsel for the petitioners
thus submitted that when the petitioners are not the accused
in any crime involving the provisions of the MPID Act and that
they had purchased the aforesaid property Gut No. 127 along
with other owners from the original owners, respondent No.3
ought not to have issued such communication, which is
impugned in this petition. Apart from this, the learned
counsel for the petitioners also raised objection that
respondent No.3 was not empowered to issue such
communication in the light of Section 4 of the MPID Act. For
that purpose, he placed reliance on order of this Court dated
22.12.2025 in Criminal Writ Petition 643 of 2025 [Ausha
w/o Sureschandra Nelge and another Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others]
4. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. by filing affidavit-in-reply,
strongly opposed the petition on the ground that, one of the
purchaser of certain part of Gut no. 127, i.e. Chandulal
Mohanlal Biyani is the main accused in crime No. 234 of
2024 registered with Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Dist Latur
along with others, being the Chairman of Rajasthan Multi
State Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Parli Vaijnath, who
have cheated the depositors of the said institution, by making
(4)
Cri.W. 298-2026.odt
misappropriation of crores of rupees. The learned A.P.P.
further submits that the property mentioned in the impugned
communication is in fact purchased by main accused
Chandulal Biyani during the period of misappropriation i.e.
between 2022 to 2024. Thus, according to her, the issuance
of communication challenged in this petition was necessary to
safeguard the interest of the depositors.
5. Heard rival submissions also perused the entire
material placed on record.
6. Though it is claimed by the respondents that the
disputed land i.e. Gut No. 127 of village Manta, District Jalna
was purchased by main accused Chandulal Biyani with the
aid of misappropriated amount, but on going through the sale
deeds produced on record by the petitioners, only small part
admeasuring 42.33 R of the said land appears to be
purchased by Chandulal Biyani along with the present
petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. in the year 2022 from the original
owners. However, in the year 2024 Chandulal Biyani had sold
his undivided share of 14.11 R from the said part to
petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and one Ramdas Uttam Borade. Thus,
the issuance of communication impugned in this petition in
respect of the entire land of Gut No. 127, definitely appears
(5)
Cri.W. 298-2026.odt
erroneous.
7. Admittedly, the transaction by Chandulal Biyani of
sailing his undivided share as mentioned above was after
registration of the crime against him, but the main question
involved in this matter is, as to whether under the provisions
of MPID Act, specially under Section 4, respondent No.3 was
empowered to issue such communication. For that purpose,
the learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied on
the judgment of this Court dated 22 nd December 2025 in the
case of Ausha w/o Sureschandra Nelge and another Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others (supra). The core
issues for our consideration in the said judgment are
reproduced herein below :-
(i) Whether the Investigating Officer under the
scheme of M.P.I.D. Act and the Code of Criminal
procedure, 1973 ( for short “Cr.P.C”), has the power
to unilaterally freeze or attach immovable
properties by writing a letter to the Sub Registrar
or Land Revenue Authorities ?
(ii) Whether the impugned order passed without
giving any notice and without following the
procedure prescribed by Section 4 of the M.P.I.D
Act, violates the principles of natural justice and is
liable to be quashed ?
(6)
Cri.W. 298-2026.odt
8. This Court had relied the earlier judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.
231 of 2025 (Vijaykumar alias Vijay S/o Sitaram
Dandanaik Vs. The State of Maharashtra) dated
16.09.2025, wherein following observation was made.
“ Thus, this Court has held that the Investigating
Officer cannot assume the statutory powers of the
Government or the designated Court by directly
issuing orders or directions to the Sub Registrar
asking them to attach or freeze the properties by
making an endorsement in the land records. In
present case Section 4 of the M.P. I.d. Act does
not provide any such legislative mandate to the
Investigating Officer to attach the landed
properties of the accused persons involved in
M.P.I.D Act by writing a letter to the Sub-
Registrar of the Land Revenue.
10. The record also reveals that the impugned
order has been passed without giving any notice
to the petitioner and record also reveals that the
petitioner was never heard or called upon before
any such letter was to be issued to the Sub-
Registrar of the Land Records Thus, the action
taken without notice or providing opportunity of
hearing and furthermore in this regard to the
judicial orders granting bail and recording full
satisfaction of security for the depositors claims.
The impugned order is bad in law. It is trite law
(7)
Cri.W. 298-2026.odt
that no person can be deprived of property saved
by Authority of Law and in conformity with
principles of natural justice as guaranteed under
Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. The
settled principle of law which underscores that
even statutory powers of attachment must be
exercised with due process and cannot overwrite
constitutional protection to property without fair
opportunity of being heard.”
9. By taking the similar view, this Court in the case of
Ausha w/o Sureschandra Nelge (supra) has held that, the
Investigating Officer while investigating the offence under
M.P.I.D. cannot issue the impugned communication contrary
to the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act and that too
without following principal of natural justice. Here in this
case also, respondent No.3 is investigating the crime against
one Chandulal Biyani and others, who are charged for
defrauding the depositors under the provisions of M.P.I.D.
Act. The present petitioners are not the accused in the
aforesaid crime. Under such circumstances, considering the
view taken by this Court in both the aforesaid judgments, the
impugned communication appears to be issued by respondent
No.3 by exceeding his powers. Powers to issue such
communication as per the provisions of M.P.I.D Act are only
(8)
Cri.W. 298-2026.odt
with Competent Authority or State Government, and
therefore, the impugned communication has to be quashed
and set-aside. In view of the same, we pass the following
order.
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Writ Petition stands allowed and the
impugned order/communication dated 16.06.2025
issued by respondent No.3 Dy. Superintendent of
Police, (Economic Wing), District Latur, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(ii) The rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
(iii) However, it is made clear that this order will not
preclude the Competent Authority or State
Government from taking any action strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the M.P.I.D Act
and in respect of only the accused in Crime No.
234/2024 registered with Gandhi Chowk, Police
Station, Dist. Latur, upon obtaining the
appropriate order from the designated Court, if
such action is warranted in law.
10. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Y.S. Kulkarni
Checking your session…