Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 22 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: M/s. Akansha Developers (developer).
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra (Respondent No.1) and an individual (Respondent No.2, the original complainant), along with other family members (Respondent Nos.3‑4).
  • Proceedings Challenged: Criminal complaint RCC No.581 of 2012 filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, alleging offences under IPC Sections 120‑B, 403, 404, 406, 420, 423, 426, 447, 504 read with Section 34.
  • Background: The dispute stems from a Development Agreement concerning ancestral property (CTS Nos. 773, 774, 776, 784) at Mouje Aundh, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. The petitioner was entrusted to develop the land and provide a flat and shop to the complainant. The complainant later cancelled the agreement and filed the criminal complaint in August 2012.
  • Civil Parallel: A civil suit on the same cause of action was pending since 2009 and was decreed on 27 April 2012. The decree awarded Rs 5 lakhs as damages to the complainant, with partial payment deposited in the trial court in 2012 and the balance reportedly paid in 2020.
  • Lower Court Orders: The JMFC, Pune, on 9 August 2012 issued process for certain IPC offences and dismissed others. The Sessions Court upheld part of this order on 28 October 2014.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions: Argued that the civil decree resolved the dispute, the criminal complaint was a retaliatory measure, the developer had fulfilled contractual obligations, and the alleged offences lacked prima facie elements.
  • Respondent’s Submissions: Asserted that CTS No.784 was not part of the civil decree, the developer and co‑accused had no right to the land, and the criminal complaint was justified.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the matter is purely civil, governed by the Development Agreement, Power of Attorney, and revenue records, and that no element of cheating or criminal breach of trust is established.
  • Consequently, the Sessions Court order dated 28 October 2014 is quashed and set aside.
  • The earlier order of issuance of process dated 9 August 2012 is also set aside.
  • The petition is allowed as per prayer clause “b” and the criminal proceedings are disposed of.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Civil Litigation