YUSUF IBHRAHIM SOPARIWALAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                              3. WP 4996-2026.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 4496 OF 2026

                      Yusuf Ibhrahim Sopariwala                          .Petitioner

                                   Vs.
ANAND
SUDHAKAR              The State of Maharashtra & anr.                    .Respondents
SUDAME
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME                Mr. Rajendra Rathod a/w. Mr. Sohail Ahmed, Advocates, for the
Date: 2026.09.29
21:21:52 +0530        Petitioner
                      Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
                      Mr. Sunil R. Pandey, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2/Complainant

                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                          DATE     : 24.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Palkar,

                      learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State and Mr. Pandey, learned

                      Counsel for Respondent No.2/Complainant.

                      2.      The Petitioner before me is a partner in a partnership firm along

                      with the Complainant/Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner is 75% share

                      holder, whereas the Respondent No. 2/Complainant is 25% share

                      holder. They have undertaken a re-development project in Mumbai ten

                      years ago. Dispute had arisen between them with regard to two specific

                      tenancies which the Respondent No.2/Complainant claims were

                      alleged to have been purchased from the incumbents/tenants in the


                      Anand                              1 of 5
                                                        3. WP 4996-2026.doc

said building. The Annexure-II has already been finalized by the

Competent Authority more than nine years ago. It is the case of the

Respondent No.2/Complainant that he has purchased the twin

tenancies because of this, the dispute has arisen. In that case, the

remedy of the Complainant lies before the Competent Authority or

otherwise in Civil proceedings. Filing the present complaint for

cheating and forgery is nothing but sheer abuse of the due process of

law, as can be seen from the material which is placed on record.

Further, the Respondent No. 2/Complainant has already invoked

arbitration proceedings with regard to the dispute emanating from the

Deed of Partnership between the parties. Once that is done and an

order dated 10.09.2026 is passed in Arbitration Application (L) No.

30274 of 2026 filed by the Respondent No.2/Complainant as Petitioner

therein is placed before me, there is no reason as to why the present

complaint can be allowed to be prosecuted further.

3.      Per contra, Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.

2/Complainant would, however, submit that a case is made out and

cognizance has been taken by the Court of the offence of cheating and

forgery and therefore, it will have to be taken to its logical end. This

proposition is argued in a dictatorial fashion by the learned Advocate,

attempting to dictate to this Court as to what the future cause of action


Anand                             2 of 5
                                                        3. WP 4996-2026.doc

should be in this case. This Court is prima facie aware as to how such

matters are to be dealt with and the Court does not require the

dictatorial authority of the lawyers who attempt to dictate to the Court

as to what the Court should do. In the present case, once it is clearly

noted by the Court as adhered hereinabove and the dispute between

the parties clearly emanates from the Agreements with the particular

tenants which are part and parcel of the dispute regarding

re-development, then the spoils of the said re-development qua the two

incumbents’ rooms will go to the person, who has the authority in law

to claim the same and it cannot be settled by filing Criminal

proceedings which is sought to be done by the Respondent

No.2/Complainant before me. The stand taken by the Respondent

No.2/Complainant that there is forgery and cheating committed by the

Petitioner prima facie is clearly insignificant altogether in view of the

Complainant’s own acts of filing arbitration proceedings as also the fact

that he has not taken any steps whatsoever qua and with the

Competent Authority with regard to amendment of the Annexure-II.

The filing of the FIR in the present case is nothing but a sheer abuse of

the due process of law which has been done in a case, where the

dispute between the parties has to be resolved by resorting to Civil

remedy as available to them in accordance with law under the relevant


Anand                             3 of 5
                                                       3. WP 4996-2026.doc

statute. In that view of the matter, Mr. Rathod has made out a clear

case for grant of the present Petition. The Writ Petition, therefore,

stands allowed.

4.      Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred

inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to

give effect to any order in the Court, prevent abuse of process of any

Court or secure the ends of justice. In the BNSS this provision stands

incorporated with Section 528 which substantially reproduces the

language and intent of Section 482 of the CRPC, 1973 High Courts

invoke this provision to step in where cases have been instituted with

malafide motives or to harass the accused person thereby avoiding

procedural harassment. It empowers Court to dismiss FIRs or criminal

proceedings if there is no prima facie case or evidence against the

accused person/s or if orders are made in violation of the principles of

natural justice. The exercise of such powers under Section 482 of CRPC

and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies from

case to case.

5.      In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal 1 the Supreme Court laid

down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the said

judgment in which the FIRs can be quashed. The Supreme Court has

further asserted that power under Section 482 is an acknowledgment
1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                            4 of 5
                                                                3. WP 4996-2026.doc

of "powers inherent" and not the source of powers additional. It has

held that even non compoundable offences can be quashed where

necessary. It has held that High Courts have to decide whether the

prosecution of an offence would further or be against the interest of

justice. It is also held that grievous offences such as murder, rape, and

dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement because

they involve societal implication.


6.      In view of the above matter, the present Petition deserves to be

allowed. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which read thus:-

        “a)    That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR bearing
        No. 92 of 2026 dated 02.02.2026 registered with Pydhonie Police
        Station under section 3(5), 340(2), 336(3), 336(2) and 318(4) of
        the BNS Act on any terms and Condition as this Hon’ble Court
        deem fit and proper.”



7.      Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.


8.      The FIR is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, any Charge-sheet

issued thereafter is also quashed and set aside.




                                                       (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                                  5 of 5