DEVINDER DEVRAJ GHAI MANAGING PARTNER- NATIONAL BUILDING CORPORATIONversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                       906 WP-3309-2026.DOC
skt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 3309 OF 2026
Devinder Devraj Ghai,                                     …Petitioner
Managing Partner- National Building
Corporation
            Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
through Khar Police Station
2. Dr. B.V. Natraj, Claiming to be                        …Respondents
Trustee of Jewel in the Lotus Trust


Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Gopal Krishna Shenoy and
Varun Shah i/b Dimple Shah, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Dhanalakshmi Krishnaiyer, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Juzer Udaipuri a/w. Ms. Sofia Udaipuri and Mr. Firdaus
Udaipuri i/b Udaipuri & Co, for Respondent No.2.


                        CORAM:        MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                        DATE :        3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
P. C.:

1.       Heard Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, Mr. Udaipuri,learned counsel appearing for Respondent

No.2 and Ms. Krishnaiyer, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent No.1.


2.       By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the legality

and validity of the order dated 8th May 2026 passed by learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai




                                      Page 1 of 4
                                 3rd September, 2026
                                                    906 WP-3309-2026.DOC
skt



below Exhibit 1 in C.C. No. 166/Misc./2023. By the impugned

order, learned Court recorded satisfaction of the existence of

dispute likely to cause a breach of peace concerning the subject

land and directed both Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 to submit

Written Statements of their respective claims concerning the facts

of actual possession of the said land.


3.    It is the submission of Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel that

on 6th May 2026, a praecipe is filed in the said case bearing Exhibit

15 (Page 131) by both the parties stating that there is no

apprehension of breach of peace.              However, immediately,

thereafter, on 8th May 2026, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent No. 2 filed praecipe bearing Exhibit 16 (Page 133)

stating that there is an apprehension of breach of peace at any

moment. He submits that, inter alia, while passing the order dated

8th May 2026, the learned Court has not considered this aspect

while recording its satisfaction as contemplated under Section

145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.



4.    Although, Mr. Udaipuri, learned counsel for Respondent No.

2, initially raised the contention that the Writ Petition be not




                                   Page 2 of 4
                              3rd September, 2026
                                                    906 WP-3309-2026.DOC
skt



entertained as there is an alternate remedy of revision, however, in

view of the contention raised by learned Senior Counsel that the

impugned order is passed without considering these two praecipes

and therefore the impugned order is perverse as material on record

is not taken into consideration, they, on instructions, submit that

the impugned order be quashed and set aside by consent and the

matter be remanded back to the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate for passing fresh order.



5.       Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel submits that the

contention raised regarding alternate remedy is not correct.

However, in any case, as the impugned order is perverse and

learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, on instructions,

has given consent for setting aside the impugned order, the said

aspect need not be examined in detail.


6.       Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by passing

following order by consent of the Petitioner and the Respondent

No.2 :

      i. The order dated 8th May 2026 passed by the learned

         Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra,




                                   Page 3 of 4
                              3rd September, 2026
                                                      906 WP-3309-2026.DOC
skt



         Mumbai, in C.C. No. 166/Misc./2023 (Exh. A – Pages 30–

         31) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the

         learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/concerned

         Court, for fresh consideration in accordance with law.


      ii. It is clarified that the impugned order is quashed and set

         aside only on the ground that relevant material on record is

         not considered and therefore, all the contentions of both the

         parties are expressly kept open.


7.      The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.




                                              [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                     Page 4 of 4
                                3rd September, 2026