RAJENDRA KANAIYALAL SANGHAVIversusSONAL SANGHAVI ALIAS SONAL UDAY THAKKAR AND AN

                Digitally signed by NISHA
NISHA SANDEEP   SANDEEP CHITNIS
CHITNIS         Date: 2026.09.21 15:43:35
                +0530                                            wp.3383.2024.doc


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 3383 OF 2024

           Dr. Rajendra Kanaiyalal Sanghavi
           Age:67 years, Occ.: Doctor
           1&2, ‘Sunita’ Nivas
           Opposite Sacred Heart Church
           78, Swami Vivekanand Road
           Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400054.     …Petitioner/Org. Accused

                  Versus

           1.     Dr. Sonal Sanghavi alias
                  Sonal Uday Thakkar
                  504, Laya Building
                  Veenasaz Videocon Layout
                  Thakur Complex
                  Kandivali (East)
                  Mumbai – 400 101.

           2.     State of Maharashtra            …Respondents


           Mr. Ashok Mishra with Ms. Kinjal Mehta, Ms. Dhara Chauhan and
           Ms. Diksha Nayak i/b M/s. Solicis Lex for the Petitioner.


           Dr. Samarth Shrikant Karmarkar with Mr. Tarun Shailesh
           Shrivastava i/b Karmarkar & Associates for the Respondent No.1.


           Mr. Tanveer Khan, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2-State.

                            CORAM          : ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.
                           RESERVED ON    : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026
                           PRONOUNCED ON : 18th SEPTEMBER 2026




                     N. S. Chitnis                                   1/8
                                                      wp.3383.2024.doc

JUDGMENT (Per Ashish S. Chavan, J.):

1.          Rule.       Rule is made returnable forthwith with the

consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned

counsel appearing for the respondents waive notice on behalf of the

respective respondents.



2.          By way of this writ petition, the Petitioner, a senior

citizen has approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction to

quash and set aside the summoning order dated 12 th September

2023 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate

(JMFC) 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, in C.C. No. 252/Misc/2021,

issuing process under Sections 420, 468 and 465 read with 34 of

the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) against the Petitioner. The complaint

has been filed by the sister of the Petitioner (Respondent No.1).



3.          Heard learned counsel Mr. Ashok Mishra for the

Petitioner and learned counsel Dr. Samarth        Karmarkar for the

Respondent No.1 and perused the record.



4.          Learned counsel for the Petitioner has invited my

attention to the complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 (original



        N. S. Chitnis                                     2/8
                                                        wp.3383.2024.doc

complainant) who is the sister of the Petitioner, on the basis of

which the summoning order was passed. The complaint makes

several allegations against the Petitioner (original accused). Initially

the Respondent No.1 had prayed for directions for investigation

under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that

prayer was rejected vide order 29 th December 2022. Thereafter

verification was recorded and process was issued.



5.          A perusal of the complaint reveals that although several

allegations are made against the Petitioner, the gist of the complaint

is in respect of grievance regarding two flats. According to the

Respondent No.1 with respect to Flat No.1, which was purchased

by one H. B. Sanghavi, uncle of the Petitioner on 12 th September

1970 and was gifted by him to the Petitioner on 9 th November 1986

by way of a gift deed. The other allegation is about Flat No.2 the

said flat was gifted by the mother of the Respondent No.1 (and the

Petitioner) to the Petitioner and his wife, by way of an another gift

deed. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 that this gift deed was

illegal since the Petitioner was not given his share by the mother.

Insofar as Flat No.1, it is the contention of the Respondent No.1

that there are no documents to show that the said flat was gifted to



        N. S. Chitnis                                       3/8
                                                      wp.3383.2024.doc

the Petitioner.     The Respondent No.1 has also alleged that the

Petitioner was not treating his parents well and had forced his

mother to sign the gift deed in favour of himself and his wife under

duress. Thus, the Respondent No.1 alleges the offences of forgery

and cheating against the Petitioner in respect of Flat Nos.1 and 2 by

preparation of forged and fabricated documents viz. GIFT DEEDS.



6.          With the assistance of the learned counsels for the

respective parties, I have also perused the impugned order dated

12th September 2023 issuing process against the Petitioner for

offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 465 read with 34 of

the IPC. The order reads as under:-

            “Read complaint aw verification of complainant.
     Perused the documents. Heard Advocate for the
     complainant.
             According to complainant accused illegally got
     transferred the flat in their name for avoiding the share of
     complainant.
            The complainant has made out prima facie case u/s
     420, 468, 465 R/W 34 of IPC. Hence issue process u/s
     420, 468, 465 R/W 34 of IPC against accused persons.
            No Case made out u/s 108, 120A, 307, 304A, 504,
     506 against accused hence accused are discharged from
     those offence.”




        N. S. Chitnis                                     4/8
                                                       wp.3383.2024.doc

7.           On behalf of the learned counsel for the Petitioner it is

submitted that the Gift Deed was executed and registered by the

mother of the Petitioner on 31st December 2001. She passed away in

July 2009. The complaint came to be filed in the year 2021, i.e. 20

years after the Gift Deed and nearly 12 years after the expiry of the

mother of the Petitioner. The Gift Deed was admittedly not

challenged by the Respondent No.1 in any Civil Court. Insofar as

Flat No.1 is concerned, the same was validly gifted to the Petitioner

by his uncle H. B. Sanghavi on 9th November 1986. Since then even

this gift deed has not been challenged by the Respondent No.1

before any Civil Court. For the first time in 2021 the Respondent

No.1 has filed a criminal complaint with malafide intentions to oust

the rights of the Petitioner in the aforesaid flats by making reckless

and frivolous allegations which are not supported by any

documents.



8.           The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also invited

my attention to the orders passed by the Registrar, Co-operative

Societies, ‘H’ West, Mumbai and the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-

operative Societies, Mumbai Division to contend that the

Respondent No.1 had challenged the membership of the Petitioner



        N. S. Chitnis                                      5/8
                                                          wp.3383.2024.doc

before the aforesaid authorities wherein she has failed to obtain any

orders against the Petitioner.



9.           On the other hand the learned counsel for the

Respondent      No.1    (original   complainant)   has    defended    the

impugned order on the ground that the mother was forced to

execute the Gift Deed by which the flat which was gifted to the

Petitioner and his wife. Insofar as the other flat is concerned, there

are no documents to demonstrate how the flat was transferred from

H. B. Sanghavi to the Petitioner. It is alleged that the Petitioner has

forged and fabricated the aforesaid GIFT DEEDS to unlawfully

obtain the possession and title of the aforesaid flats.



10.          On appreciation of the rival submissions, following facts

emerge:-

             It is not in dispute that the GIFT DEEDS are executed

in 2001 by the mother of the Petitioner and in 1986 by the uncle of

the Petitioner respectively. Both GIFT DEEDS are in favour of the

Petitioner. These GIFT DEEDS are not challenged in any competent

Civil Court by the Respondent No.1. The mother of the Petitioner

has expired in July 2009. After almost 12 years of her death and 20



        N. S. Chitnis                                         6/8
                                                       wp.3383.2024.doc

years after the execution of the gift deed the sister of the Petitioner

(Respondent No.1) has chosen to institute the present complaint

which has resulted in the summoning order which has been

impugned by the present petition. The challenge mounted by the

Respondent No.1 to the membership of the Petitioner in the Society

in which the aforesaid flats are situated has also not resulted in any

favorable orders to the Petitioner.          The complaint clearly

demonstrates that save and except bald allegations of forgery and

fabrication of the GIFT DEEDS, there are no documents relied

upon by the Respondent No.1 in support of her allegations. A bare

reading of the complaint does not reveal even a prima facie case of

forgery and/or cheating. A perusal of the summoning order

indicates that the same is cryptic and unreasoned. The learned

Magistrate has not assigned any reasons as to why, according to

him, process ought to be issued against the Petitioner for offences of

forgery and cheating. Although, the impugned order mentions that

a prima facie case is made out, there is absolutely no reasoning to

indicate how the learned Magistrate reached this conclusion.



11.         In the wake of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

in the light of the fact that the impugned order suffers from lack of



        N. S. Chitnis                                      7/8
                                                     wp.3383.2024.doc

reasoning as to why the Petitioner has been summoned to face

charges of cheating and forgery, the same cannot be sustained and

must be quashed and set aside.



12.         In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 12 th

September 2023 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate (JMFC) 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, in C.C. No.

252/Misc/2021, is quashed and set aside.

            With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed

of. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.




                                           ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.




        N. S. Chitnis                                    8/8