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

Order Date: 17 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Jaffer Suleman Musafirkhana Trust & Ors.; Respondents – State of Maharashtra & Anr., and Ms. Asha Gachke (Respondent No.2, party in person). Appellant for the State – Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton. Advocates: Mr. Manish Rai (Petitioners Nos.1 & 4), Mr. Manoj Mohite (Senior Advocate for Petitioner No.3), Ms. Asha Gachke (self‑representing). Bench: Justice Milind N. Jadav.
  • Nature of proceedings: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1045 of 2010 (with Interim Application No. 2244 of 2026) challenging a Metropolitan Magistrate’s order dated 16‑Nov‑2009 (CC No. 197/SW/2009) that issued process against the Trust and its trustees under IPC sections 380, 418, 420, 451, 504, 506, 506(II) 34 and 120(b).
  • Background: The Trust acquired Khare Sadan Building on 15‑Jan‑2004 by registered sale deed. Original ground‑floor tenants were Tara Joglekar (Room 3), Mr. Menon (Room 1) and Mrs. Tilekar (Room 2). Respondent No.2, Ms. Gachke, claimed she had been sub‑letting Room 1 since 1982 from Vishnu Joglekar, a claim the Trust disputes, stating the room belonged to Mr. Menon and that Vishnu Joglekar was never a tenant of Room 1.
  • Key events:
  • 28‑Feb‑2007: Unidentified persons, including Accused No.9 (the Court Bailiff), broke the lock on Room 1 to execute a decree of possession in favour of the Trust.
  • Bailiff’s inventory omitted a gas cylinder and cash of Rs. 32,000 allegedly present in the room.
  • Respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint leading to the magistrate’s order on 16‑Nov‑2009.
  • Parallel civil proceedings: RAE Suit No. 47/78 of 2005 (eviction of Tara Joglekar, Room 3) and Small Causes Court eviction decree dated 24‑Apr‑2006, executed by the Bailiff.
  • Respondent No.2 filed Notice of Motion No. 92 of 2007 in the Small Causes Court seeking restoration of possession of Room 1 (referred to by her as Room 3).
  • Arguments:
  • Petitioners argued the matter is purely civil; the magistrate’s criminal process was unwarranted and issued without applying mind.
  • Respondent No.2 contended the petition is an abuse of Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to delay criminal prosecution and that the Trust should face the criminal process.
  • Petitioners highlighted that the Bailiff’s report and inventory were complete and that the alleged omission of Rs. 32,000 was not a basis for criminal liability.
  • The Court noted that the Trust, as decree holder, was executing a lawful civil decree and that the civil dispute over tenancy rights should be decided by the Small Causes Court.

Final Outcome

  • The order dated 16‑Nov‑2009 issuing process against the Trust and its trustees is quashed and set aside.
  • Criminal Writ Petition No. 1045 of 2010 is allowed in terms of prayer clause “a”.
  • Interim Application No. 2244 of 2026 is disposed.
  • The pending civil proceedings before the Small Causes Court are to continue without influence from this judgment; evidence will be examined as per law.
  • The Court emphasizes that criminal liability cannot be inferred merely from a civil eviction execution and that the magistrate failed to consider the Bailiff’s complete documentation.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Civil Property Dispute