Bombay High Court
PREYASH SHASHIKANT NANAVATIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court quashed the FIR (C.R.No.81 of 2024) and all consequent criminal proceedings (R.C.C.No.860 of 2025) against the petitioner (Accused No.12) only.
Summary
The petitioner, Preyash Shashikant Nanavati, was named Accused No.12 in an FIR filed in 2024 alleging offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to a dispute over a parcel of land in Mira‑Bhayander. The petitioner claimed ownership of the land based on a registered conveyance deed executed in 2008 after purchasing it from Anita S. Almeida, who held a power of attorney from the original owner. The complainant asserted that the land belonged to her ancestors and that the power of attorney had no authority to sell, leading to a civil suit (Regular Civil Suit No.1583 of 2025) pending before the Junior Division Court. The petitioner argued that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process, that the dispute was purely civil, and that the FIR was filed with undue delay and laches. The Court examined the documentary evidence, noted the existence of the pending civil suit, and held that there was no criminal act warranting prosecution, thereby quashing the FIR and the related criminal case against the petitioner. The petition was allowed and the matter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner are maintainable given that the underlying dispute is civil in nature.
- Whether the criminal case should be quashed on the ground of lack of criminal conduct and the pendency of a civil suit.
- Whether the petitioner can be exempted from criminal liability while the civil suit determines the property rights.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 199, 200, 420, 465, 468, 471
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash of FIR
- property dispute
- civil suit pending
- abuse of process
- laches
- Indian Penal Code
- Code of Civil Procedure
Judgment
48.WP.5317.2021.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5317 OF 2024
Preyash Shashikant Nanavati .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Ayush Pasbola a/w. Mr. Sankalp Vichare, Advocates for
Petitioner.
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Pasbola, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms.
Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
2. Respondent No.2 is not present despite being served.
Advocate for the Petitioner has filed Affidavit-of-Service dated
25.08.2026 stating that notice of today’s hearing has been served on
Respondent No.2 and same is perused by the Court.
3. Petitioner is indicted as Accused No.12 in the present case in
complaint filed by the Complainant. Admitted facts which emanate
from the record is that Petitioner is in possession of land bearing
Survey No.15 / 1 situated in Mira-Bhayander area of Mumbai since
2008 as its owner pursuant to a registered Conveyance Deed. He had
purchased the said land from Anita S. Almeida (also an Accused) who
sold the land to him on the basis of a Power of Attorney in her favour
1 of 6
48.WP.5317.2021.doc
from the original owner on 29.04.2008. The private Complainant has
filed a compliant on 24.08.2024 with the Uttan Sagari Police Station
bearing C.R.No.81 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 420,
465, 468, 471, 199, 200 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
wherein she has indicted 12 Accused persons and Petitioner is
arraigned as Accused No.12.
4. The case of Complainant is that the subject land Survey
No.15/01 in village – Bhayander, Vasai – Virar region belonged to
Complainant’s maternal great grandfather Pendru Mates Fernan alias
Fernandes who had expired on 14.01.1927. The case of Complainant is
that until the year 2008, the said land in the revenue record stood in
the name of the great grandfather and her sister and the constituted
Power of Attorney had no right to sell it to Petitioner and his associate.
5. According to the Complainant by virtue of the successive
transfers on the basis of the Gift Deed notwithstanding the mutation
entry entered to that effect, Petitioner (Accused No.12) acquired and
got the subject property transferred to his name from the Constituted
Power of Attorney surreptitiously. Petitioner has also given reference
to a Memorandum of Understanding executed by the said Anita S.
Almeida who is arraigned as Accused No.6 with the other Accused
persons in the year 2007 i.e. prior to Petitioner’s transfer.
6. There is a reference given to an Agreement for Sale executed
2 of 6
48.WP.5317.2021.doc
in January – 2008 between the Petitioner and Accused No.6 – said
Anita Almeida who is the Power of Attorney holder of Accused Nos.1 to
5. The subject land is also covered under the registered Conveyance
Deed between the parties dated 02.05.2008 and thereafter the
Petitioner and one Hiten Mansukhlal Sheth purchased the said
property by a registered Conveyance Deed for consideration of
Rs.50,00,000/- paid to the said Constituted Power of Attorney.
7. In view of the above, other family members of Respondent
No.2 have filed Regular Civil Suit No.1583 of 2025 before the Civil
Judge Junior Division in the Civil Court which is pending. The
Complainant is also made a party Defendant to the said Civil Suit
proceedings. Considering the aforesaid timeline and the substantive
rights of the parties in the subject land whether they would devolve
upon them by virtue of operation of law by virtue of registered
documents / Deed of Conveyance and / or gift deed, it will
undoubtedly and exclusively decided in the Civil Suit pending in the
Civil Court.
8. Respondent No.2 infact filed Application under Order – I
Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the said Civil Suit.
Respondent No.2 has also been arraigned as party Defendant therein.
The copy of First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) is appended at
page No.16 and when read at page Nos.21 to 24, it is seen that no
3 of 6
48.WP.5317.2021.doc
specific role whatsoever is attributed to the Petitioner before me. The
FIR is also devoid of mentioning the suit proceedings which was filed
prior to filing of the FIR. Rights of the parties in regard to the subject
suit land before me namely Petitioner will be governed by the
registered documentary transactions and documents or by operation of
law. As on today Petitioner is in physical possession of the said Suit
land.
9. Even otherwise, if FIR is read, according to Respondent No.2
– Complainant, the rights on the family members of the original owner
of the land has been devolved by the virtue of succession and gift deed
and if that be the case, the said right will have to be fructified by the
concerned parties in appropriate civil proceedings which they have
filed. If right of the Petitioner is hampered by virtue of he having
purchased the subject land by a registered Deed of Conveyance in the
year 2008, it shall also be open to the Complainant to approach the
Civil Court and seek injunctive relief in accordance with law or file a
counter claim in the subsisting Suit proceeding.
10. There is absolutely no criminality whatsoever involved in the
FIR which is filed, which is nothing but sheer abuse of the due process
of law and has been filed as pressure tactic. Continuation of the
present criminal proceedings in the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the present case would be unfair to the parties, namely Petitioner
4 of 6
48.WP.5317.2021.doc
and co-purchaser who have been in possession of the subject land since
the year - 2008 pursuant to a registered Deed of Conveyance after
paying consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-.
11. Filing of FIR in the year 2024 itself shows that it is fraught
with delay and laches considering that the subject land being in
possession of the Petitioner and co-accused Hiten Sheth would never
have been kept under wraps since the year 2008 onwards. This is all
the more reason to consider the present Petition for quashing of
criminal proceedings. There is no element of criminality involved in
the present case which can be seen and the entire dispute is of a purely
civil nature.
12. With the able assistance of Mr. Pasbola and Ms. Newton, I
have perused the entire material which is appended to the present
Petition. Substantive documentary evidence in the form of Deed of
Conveyance, Power of Attorney and receipts of payment have been
appended qua the subject property. Suit by the parties is already
pending before Civil Court which is all the more reason that the
present Petition deserves to be allowed. Petition is therefore allowed in
terms of prayer clause (b) qua the Petitioner before the Court which
reads thus:-
“b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing
C.R.No.81 of 2024 and all consequent proceedings arising out of
it viz., R.C.C.No.860 of 2025, pending on the file of 4 th Joint Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Mira Bhayandar. ”
5 of 6
48.WP.5317.2021.doc
13. It is clarified that the above First Information Report No.81
of 2024 and all consequent proceedings arising out of C.R.No.860 of
2025 are quashed qua Accused No.12 (Petitioner) only.
14. With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed and
disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.08.28
11:34:33 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…