Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: September 17, 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Harakchand Jain, Shankar Shrirangrao Bhise, E. Ravendiran, Raghuvir Ramrao Shelke & Ors., Govind M. Bodke (collectively filing five writ petitions: WP 5354/22, 570/22, 568/22, 594/22, 567/22).
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra & an ex‑Corporator of Kalyan Dombivili Municipal Corporation (KDMC) (the complainant).
  • Core dispute: Quashing of FIR No. 11 of 2022 dated 27‑01‑2022 and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom, relating to alleged offences under IPC §§ 420, 418, 415, 467, 448, 120B, 34 and PC Act §§ 9, 13 concerning a redevelopment project of Manik Colony.
  • Accused roster: 18 persons – Municipal Commissioners of KDMC (2004‑2021) (Nos 1‑5), Assistant Town Planners (Nos 6‑8), Assistant Town Planners & Engineers (Nos 9‑16), the Developer (No 17) and the Architect (No 18).
  • Background: Redevelopment of Manik Colony began in 2004; demolition of dilapidated structures in 2010; Part Commencement Certificate issued; tenants raised objections which were rejected by KDMC on 20‑07‑2016; related writ petition (No 11484/2018) dismissed on 17‑10‑2016; Supreme Court later upheld dismissal. On 24‑07‑2021 the complainant filed a criminal complaint alleging fraud, lack of tenant consent, illegal FSI sanction, and violations of DCPR and MRTP Act.
  • Procedural history: Magistrate ordered investigation under CrPC Sec 156(3) on 18‑01‑2022 (Criminal Misc. Application No. 327/2021). Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision Application No. 11 of 2022, set aside the magistrate’s order on 21‑05‑2022 (exhibits O & Q). The petitioners argue that the complaint lacked the mandatory sanction under CrPC Sec 154(3) for prosecuting public servants and that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain a PC Act complaint, which should have been referred to a Special Judge.
  • Additional facts: No specific factual allegations were made against any individual; the complaint was described as generic and omnibus. The court noted that the investigation officer’s report made no mention of any sanction. The Sessions Court correctly observed the magistrate’s omission of sanction and jurisdictional error.
  • On 12‑04‑2024, the tenants’ writ petition No. 11484/2018 was dismissed, and subsequent challenges by the complainant (WPs 2517‑2520 of 2022) were withdrawn.

Final Outcome

  • The Court allowed all five writ petitions:

1. WP 5354/2022 (Developer) – relief clause (a) granted.

2. WP 594/2022 – relief clauses (a) and (b) granted.

3. WP 570/2022 – relief clauses (b) and (c) granted.

4. WP 568/2022 – relief clauses (b) and (c) granted.

5. WP 567/2022 – relief clause (b) and (c) granted.

  • Consequently, the FIR dated 27‑01‑2022 and the magistrate’s investigation order dated 18‑01‑2022 are set aside and quashed.
  • No order as to costs.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Municipal Corruption