Bombay High Court
CHARU KISHOR MEHTAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The High Court held that the lower courts correctly dismissed the revision, as the petitioner’s delay and prior civil defeats barred the criminal complaint, and the supervisory jurisdiction does not permit interference.
Summary
The petitioner, Charu Kishor Mehta, filed a criminal complaint alleging forgery of mortgage and loan documents that led to the seizure and sale of her flat. The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate, who held that the petitioner had previously lost civil proceedings and had not raised the forgery allegation earlier, deeming the criminal charges not prima facie. The petitioner sought revision, arguing that earlier statements indicated the documents were forged and that the delay should not bar investigation. The Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the Magistrate’s dismissal, viewing the criminal complaint as an attempt to obtain a criminal advantage in a civil dispute. The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, upheld the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing the significance of laches and the limited scope of revisional review, and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- What is the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in reviewing a revision order?
- Whether the delay and prior civil litigation preclude the investigation of alleged forgery offences under the IPC.
- Whether the petitioner’s earlier written statement constitutes sufficient basis to revive criminal charges despite the lapse of time.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 409, 418, 420, 465, 467
Subjects
- forgery
- revision jurisdiction
- supervisory jurisdiction
- Article 227
- laches
- civil‑criminal nexus
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
18-CRIWP303-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 303 OF 2026
Charu Kishor Mehta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and ors. …Respondents
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate, a/w Minal Chandnani and
SANTOSH
SUBHASH Rajesh Ranglani, for the Petitioner.
KULKARNI
Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State.
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.02.16
22:01:16 +0530
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 12th FEBRUARY, 2026
Order:-
1. Heard Mr. Ponda, the learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assails the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and
order dated 24th December, 2025, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Criminal
Revision Application No.928 of 2025, whereby the revision
application preferred by the petitioner – complainant against an
order dated 28th July, 2025, passed by the learned Magistrate
thereby dismissing the complaint being CC No.4/SW/2023 Aled
by the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
1/5
18-CRIWP303-2026.DOC
406, 409, 418, 420, 465 and 467 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”), came to be
dismissed by afArming the order passed by the learned
Magistrate.
3. The petitioner Aled the said complaint with the allegations
that her husband and son were the Directors of a Company,
Beautiful Diamonds Ltd. The said company had availed
Anancial facilities from Oriental Bank of Commerce. The
petitioner has allegedly mortgaged her Fat situated at Usha
Kiran Apartment, by way of security, for those Anancial
facilities. Eventually, measures were taken to enforce the
security and sale the said Fat.
4. The petitioner alleges that after the petitioner examined
the documents pertaining to the said Anancial facilities, namely,
mortgage, loan agreement, letter of guarantee etc., the petitioner
realized that those documents were forged. She realized that
her signatures on those documents were forged. The petitioner
had not executed those documents. On the basis of the false
and forged documents, the respondent had obtained the
possession of the said Fat and sold the same.
5. By an order dated 28th July, 2025, the learned Magistrate
was persuaded to dismiss the complaint observing that there
2/5
18-CRIWP303-2026.DOC
was a chequered history of litigation between the petitioner and
the Anancial institution and the petitioner had failed in all the
proceedings up to the Supreme Court. In those proceedings,
the petitioner had not raised the ground that the documents in
question were allegedly forged. The allegations of making false
documents and forgery of the signatures of the petitioner were
creatures of afterthought. Thus, the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 418, 420, 465 and 467 read with Section 34
of the Penal Code were not prima facie made out.
6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision
application before the Sessions Judge. By the impugned order,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision
application concurring with the view of the learned Magistrate
that after the petitioner – complainant failed in the civil
proceedings in relation to the mortgaged property, the
complainant was making an effort to give a criminal Favour to
the civil dispute.
7. Mr. Ponda submitted that the Courts below have
approached the matter from an incorrect perspective. The
observations of the learned Magistrate that, at no point of time,
the petitioner – complainant had made allegations that the
documents on the basis on which recovery proceedings were
3/5
18-CRIWP303-2026.DOC
initiated were forged, is against the weight of the material on
record. Attention of the Court was invited to the written
statement Aled by the petitioner in the original application
before DRT in the month of July, 2003, wherein the petitioner
had denied the genuineness of the documents and had
contended that the documents were signed in blank and were
not properly Alled in when the signatures were put on those
documents. Conceding that there was some delay on the part of
the petitioner in approaching the learned Magistrate, Mr. Ponda
would urge, nonetheless, an offence should not go
uninvestigated and untried.
8. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the
submissions of Mr. Ponda. At the outset, it is necessary to note
that, in exercise supervisory jurisdiction against an order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction, the scope of inquiry gets further constricted. In the
case at hand, both the Courts have justiAably recorded the
Anding that the petitioner – complainant after having lost in the
civil proceedings up to the Supreme Court, has made an
endeavour to give a criminal Favour to the civil dispute.
9. Reliance by Mr. Ponda on the written statement Aled in
OA, does not advance the cause of the submission on behalf of
4/5
18-CRIWP303-2026.DOC
the petitioner – complainant as such written statement was Aled
prior to 20 years of lodging the complaint. The huge time-lag
and laches on the part of the petitioner – complainant is also a
factor which deserves to be taken into account.
10. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, have correctly applied the principles which
govern the issuance of process and interference in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction, respectively, correctly. Therefore, in
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction this Court does not And any
legal inArmity in the impugned orders.
11. The revision application, thus, stands dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
5/5
Checking your session…