Rajan Bhagwandas Sujanani And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr

2026:BHC-AS:23120-DB
Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 622 OF 2024
1. Rajan Bhagwandas Sujanani
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 73 years,
Occupation : Retired,
Residing at Flat No. 5 Mayfair,
Union Park, Khar(W), Mumbai - 400 052.
2. Kishore Daulatram Vatnani
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 61 years,
Occupation : Service,
Residing at 502, Sealine, 16 Union Park,
Khar (W), Mumbai- 400 052. … Petitioners
(Org. Accused Nos. 2 and 3)
V/s
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Assistant Commissioner
of Police) D- Special, D.C.B.,
C.I.D., Mumbai.
2. Kamal Jaswantlal Sheth
Adult, Indian Inhabitant
Residing at 49, Swastik Plaza,
V. L. Mehta Road, Juhu,
Mumbai – 400 049. … Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2317 OF 2023
Mangesh Tukaram Sawant
Age:- 59 Years, Occ. : Business
Partner of M/s. Sailee Developers,
having office at: A/004, Prathmesh
Horizon, Linking Road, Opp. Don
Bosco School, Borivali West,
Mumbai – 400091. ... Petitioner
V/S
1/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
State of Maharashtra.
Through Inspector of Police
(Anti Extortion Cell Crime
Branch CID Mumbai),
Mumbai- 400 001. … Respondents
______________________
Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Sadanand Shetty, Ms. Snehal
Khairnar, Mr. Yogendra Singh, Ms. Kruti Parekh i/b Ms. Nidhi Chheda for
the Petitioner in WP/622/2024.
Mr. Mutahhar Khan, Mr. Sachin Mhatre, Ms. Ishita Kamath i/b Mr. Aamir
Qureshi Advocate for Petitioner in WP/2317/2023.
Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP for the State.
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate, i/b Mr. Abdul Kader Millwala, for
the Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Sanjay Taralgatti, PI, DCB, CID, Mumbai.
______________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 25 NOVEMBER 2025.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 9 JUNE 2026

JUDGMENT : [Per : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.] :-
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
the consent of the parties.
2) The Petitioners, in Writ Petition No.622 of 2024 and Writ
Petition No. 2317 of 2023, both filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, have approached this Court, inter alia with a prayer that, the
chargesheet filed in C.R. No.115 of 2013, now numbered as MCOCA
Special Case No.298 of 2023 pending before the Learned Special Judge,
2/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
for alleged offences punishable under Sections 387 read with 120-B and
34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1), 3(2), and 3(4) of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed and set aside;
th
and further that the prior approval dated 12 September 2022 granted
st
under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOCA and the sanction dated 21
February 2023 granted under Section 23(2) of the MCOCA in connection
nd
with FIR No. 403 of 2013 dated 22 November 2013 registered with
Juhu Police Station and subsequently transferred to the Anti-Extortion
Cell, also be quashed and set aside.
3) Heard, Mr. Amit Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024, Mr. Mutahhar
Khan, learned Advocate for the Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.
2317 of 2023. Mr. Ashish Satpute, learned APP for the Respondent-State
and Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2
in both the petitions. Perused the entire record.
4) Briefly stated, the relevant facts in both the petitions are as
under:-
4.1) In the year 1998, out of a larger land admeasuring 3,30,000
sq feet, the Petitioner No. 1 Mr. Rajan B. Sujanani through Varshraj
Realtor Ltd. acquired development rights for approximately 1,30,000 sq.
ft. built up area from Mr. Nitin Mehta of Siddhivinayak Developers.
3/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
rd th
4.2) On 3 May 2001 and 4 July 2003, M/s Manoranjan
Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd/., Shree Siddhivinayak Developers,
Varshraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Acme Sthapati and Shri Bhawanbhai
Bhanushali entered into Agreements to assign rights of development to
Sailee Developers, in respect of land bearing S No.3 (P) and S No. 4(P)
corresponding CTS No 5(P) and 6 totally admeasuring 33,664 sq. meters,
situated at Adi Sankaracharya Marg, Powai, Village Kopari, Taluka- Kurla,
District-Mumbai.
th
4.3) On 8 August 2007, Sailee Developers entered into a Joint
Venture Agreement with on M/s Chandiwala Enterprises for the further
development of the said Powai property.
4.4) In or around 2007, disputes arose between Sailee Developers
and Varshraj Realtors, when it came to the knowledge of
directors/shareholders of Varshraj Realtors that, Sailee Developers, had
assigned/transferred all rights in the said property for development to
M/s Chandiwala Enterprises.
st
4.5) On 31 October 2007 Varshraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd, filed a Civil
Suit No. 3300 of 2007 against Sailee Developers and others inter alia to
restrain them from development, construction and creation of third-party
rights in respect of a portion of the said Powai property.
th
4.6) By Orders dated 20 December 2007, of this Court passed in
Notice of Motion No. 4654 of 2007 in Suit No. 3300 of 2007, M/s
4/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
Chandiwala Enterprises, undertook to reserve 53,300 sq. feet built up
area comprising of residential units and shops so as to secure the claim of
M/s.Varshraj Realtors Private Limited.
4.7) In the year 2008, Nitin Mehta proposed to take over and
acquire Varshraj Realtors Private Limited, belonging to Mr. Rajan B.
Sujanani, Varsha Rajan Sujanani, Mr. Kishore D. Vatnani and Hariram
th
Ramnani. On 25 July 2008, the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 622 of
2024 entered into an Agreement with Mr. Kamal Sheth (Original
Complainant/Respondent No.2) to sell their company viz Varshraj
Realtors. Varshraj Realtors held 2 properties, namely (i) Prathmesh
Centre, at Bandra and (ii) development rights of 1,30,000 sq ft of land at
Powai. The agreement was on “as is where is basis”. The parties were
well aware of the civil litigation.
4.8) From 2008 till about August 2011, the Respondent No. 2
paid a total amount of Rs.15.6125 crores and the balance amount was
supposed to be paid by transferring certain properties. As the Respondent
No. 2, did not possess unencumbered properties, with a clear marketable
title, the balance payment remained to be paid.
4.9) It is alleged that, at the end of year 2011 and early 2012, the
Petitioners met with Mangesh Sawant of Sailee Developers i.e. Petitioner
in Writ Petition No. 2317 of 2023 and agreed to sell Varshraj Realtors
Private Limited to Mr. Mangesh Sawant, by excluding Respondent No.2.
5/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
4.10) In the year 2011, disputes arose between the parties, who
made claims in respect of the Powai land. Arbitration proceedings vide
Claim Petition No. 2 of 2011 filed by M/s Sailee Developers and Claim
Petition No. 1 of 2011 filed by Varshraj Realtor Pvt. Ltd were initiated.
th
4.11) On 25 June 2012, Respondent No.2 filed a Civil Suit
No.1418 of 2012 before this Court, seeking specific performance of the
th
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25 July 2008. The Defendants
therein, contended that the Agreement is a nullity as signature of
Petitioner No.1 is forged.
rd
4.12) It is alleged that, on 3 September 2013 at about 17:15 hrs,
Respondent No. 2 received an extortion call from No. +40330476099,
wherein the caller identified himself as gangster Ravi Pujari, threatened
the Respondent No.2, directed him to settle ongoing dispute with Mr.
Kishor Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani (Petitioners in Writ Petition No.
622 of 2024) and to act as per their directions. Immediately, Respondent
No. 2 filed a complaint with the police authorities, stating that the act of
extortion was committed by gangster Ravi Pujari was at the behest of Mr.
Kishor Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani. This complaint is the starting
point of the present proceedings.
th
4.13) On 4 September 2013 at 20:08 hrs, a second call was
allegedly received from No. +6664748499, followed by multiple
international calls, none of which were answered. Respondent No.2,
6/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
th th
addressed complaints dated 4 September 2013, 6 September 2013 and
rd
23 September 2013, to the Police Authorities and also to the Anti-
Extortion Cell, Mumbai.
nd
4.14) On 22 November 2013, FIR No. 403 of 2013 was registered
at Juhu Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 387 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was later transferred to the Anti-
Extortion Cell. The A.E.C. renumbered the said crime as FIR No. 115 of
th
2013 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was added. On 30
November 2013, a transcript panchnama of the alleged conversation
between Respondent No. 2 and Ravi Pujari was prepared. In the
transcripts, the names of Mr. Kishor Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani are
specifically mentioned.
th
4.15) On 28 February 2014, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
after hearing the Petitioner No. 1 was pleased to direct the Azad maidan
Police Station to register the offence under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
against Mr. Kamal J. Sheth, for the Forged MOU.
th
4.16) On 16 July 2014, MECR No.11 of 2014 was registered by
Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioners Mr. Rajan Sujanani, Mr. Kishor
Vatanani & others at Juhu Police Station for offences under Section 419,
th
420 and 120-B. A C-Summary Report was filed on 24 April 2017.
4.17) M.E.C.R. No. 1 of 2014 was registered at the behest of Mr.
Rajan Sujanani against the Respondent No. 2 for an offence punishable
7/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
th
under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w 120(B) of the IPC. On 14
January 2015, this Court stayed the proceeding in MECR no. 01 of 2014.
4.18) In FIR No. 115/2013, i.e. the crime in question an “A”
rd
Summary Report was filed. On 23 August 2017, Original
Complainant/Respondent No. 2 filed a Protest Petition challenging the A-
th
Summary report. Notice was issued to the Respondent No. 2 on 16
December 2015.
st
4.19) On 21 February 2020, gangster Ravi Pujari was extradited
to India from Senegal.
rd
4.20) On 23 December 2021, the Learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate 37th Esplanade Court, allowed the Protest
Petition and ordered further investigation. Between April and August
2022, statements of several witnesses were recorded under section 161
and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging organized crime etc.
th
4.21) On 12 September 2022, prior approval under Section 23(1)
(a) of MCOCA, 1999 was granted by Joint Commissioner of Police.
st
4.22) On 21 February 2023, sanction under Section 23(2) of
MCOCA was accorded by Special Commissioner of Police.
th
4.23) On 6 March 2023, a chargesheet was filed before the
th
Learned Special Judge 55 Court, Mumbai. Cognizance of the criminal
th
proceedings was taken on 9 March 2023.
th
4.24) On 29 December 2023, report was filed under Section
8/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
20(3) of MCOCA before the Learned Special Judge for proclamation. By
th
Order dated 29 December 2023 proclamation was issued against the
Petitioners.
4.25) The aforenoted facts are deciphered from the record.
5) In Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024, Mr. Amit Desai, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that:-
th
5.1) Prior Approval dated 12 September 2022, only refers to
DCB, CID C.R. No. 115 of 2013 (previously Juhu Police Station C.R. No.
403 of 2013) registered under Sections 387, 120-B and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. That, Prior Approval refers to other criminal proceedings on
which the approval was based. That, in the Prior Approval, it is alleged
that, the accused utilized the services of the organized crime syndicate
headed by Accused No. 1 Ravi Pujari and other members of the organized
crime syndicate. That, the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, in order
to deprive the Respondent No.2 of his rightful ownership in Varshraj
Realtors Pvt. Ltd. That, the Prior Approval refers to a meeting held in the
month of May 2013 at the house of deceased Parshuram Shinde, wherein,
the conspiracy was allegedly hatched.
5.2) That, though the Prior Approval refers to the FIR,
panchanama, statements of witnesses and that the evidence against the
wanted accused, however, it does not refer to or deal with the “A-
th
Summary Report” dated 14 December 2015, which has been sidelined
9/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
st
and ignored. That, the Sanction under Section 23(2) dated 21 February
th
2023 is based on the same Prior Approval dated 12 September 2022.
5.3) That, in the ‘A-Summary Report’ there is a reference to
gangster Ravi Pujari, however, most importantly in the said extradition
request, the CR No. 115 of 2013 is not even listed or referred to. That, in
the ‘A-Summary Report’, the Investigating Authority has specifically
concluded that there was no evidence/material available against the
Petitioners.
5.4) That, in the prior approval/sanction, there is nothing to
show as to when and why the Investigating Authority decided to invoke
the provisions of MCOCA. That, the same do not mention the reasons and
material based on which those are passed. That, the prior
approval/sanction do not reflect nor is there any indication of
“application of mind” to the earlier investigation. That, there is no reason
given to indicate as to why the A-Summary Report was not taken into
consideration. That, none of the said aspects are even considered while
passing the Orders.
5.5) That, as regards the statements of witnesses, the same were
recorded by the DCB in the year 2014, wherein the witnesses had denied
of knowing Accused No. 1 Ravi Pujari. That, some of the said witnesses
were originally named as an accused and now subsequently have been
shown as a witnesses. That, persons accused in the criminal
10/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
prosecution/FIR appear to have been given a pardon merely by providing
favorable statements to the investigating authority. That, the only
material available with the Investigating Authority, is the statement of
accused persons, who has now been made witnesses.
5.6) That, if the the statements of witnesses recorded in the year
2014 are perused, it is specifically stated therein that, the witnesses had
no knowledge of who Ravi Pujari was. However, in the subsequent
statements of the year 2022, the same person surprisingly become aware
of the said gangster, Mr. Ravi Pujari. That, the investigation conducted,
after the A-Summary Report, appears to be mala fide on the part of the
complainant and the prosecution agencies. That, non-consideration of the
A-Summary Report, clearly indicates non-application of mind or
demonstrates a clear case of malafide.
nd
5.7) That, while referring to FIR No. 115 of 2013 dated 22
November 2013, Mr. Desai submitted that the witness Madhusudhan has
th
in his statement dated 10 September 2014, specifically stated that, he
had no knowledge of the threats given by the gangster Ravi Pujari. That,
he does not know and recognize gangster Ravi Pujari nor does he have
any concern with the said Ravi Pujari. That, he has no knowledge as to
why the name of Parshuram Shinde was taken in the said crime. That, in
th
contradiction with the statement of 10 September 2014, the same
th
witness in the supplementary statement dated 4 April 2022, has stated
11/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
that he knows Satish Dhanani, Mr. Ramnani, and Mr. Kishor Vatnani.
That, he was aware of the disputes in respect of the Powai properties.
That, on the say of Parshuram Shinde, Mr. Kishor Vatnani and Mr. Rajan
Sujanani, gangster Ravi Pujari had threatened the Complainant and
directed him to settle the disputes in respect of the Powai property as per
the say of Mr. Kishore Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani.
5.8) That, in the year 2014, the Complainant provided a CD
recording. That, the Section 65-B certificate, as required under the
Evidence Act, was not produced at that time, nor was the prescribed
procedure followed. That, perusal of the transcripts would indicate that,
the same do not make out a case of extortion and instead, reflect internal
civil-commercial disputes between the parties. That, the mobile phones
were not seized. That, in view of the aforesaid facts, the question of
invoking the provisions of MCOCA on the ground of alleged threats could
not have arisen. That, surprisingly, in the year 2022, a Section 65-B
st
certificate dated 1 April 2022, was provided by the Investigating Officer.
That, there has been no investigation, regarding the alleged numbers of
gangster Ravi Pujari and there is no proof to indicate or establish that the
voice in the transcripts or calls belongs to gangster Ravi Pujari. That, the
extradition of gangster Ravi Pujari is not based on the present FIR.
5.9) That in the year 2013, when the FIR was filed, there was no
investigation whatsoever in respect of gangster Ravi Pujari. That, the
12/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
provisions of MCOCA, were not invoked. It was only in the year 2022,
after a period of approximately nine years that, the provisions of MCOCA
were invoked, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay. That, in
matters where “A summary” report is filed, the Investigating Authorities,
need to consider the A-Summary Report with more care and caution.
5.10) That, various civil proceedings are pending between the
parties, in respect of the development of the land in question. That, the
Petitioners had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Sailee
Developers, whereby Sailee Developers was to develop the property and
Varshraj Realtors and Sidhivinayak were to be given fully constructed,
developed, lock-and-key property in proportion to 41% of their holdings.
Under this arrangement, Varshraj Realtors was to receive 53,300 sq. feet
of constructed property.
5.11) That, disputes arose between Sailee Developers and Varshraj
Realtors when they came to know that Sailee Developers had assigned
and transferred the entire development rights to Chandiwala Enterprises.
That, the Petitioner immediately filed Civil Suit No. 3300 of 2007 in
respect of the Powai land and Civil Suit No. 3301 of 2007 in respect of
the Bandra property. Civil Suit No. 1418 of 2012, filed before this Court
for specific performance, is pending. Disputes, in respect of the Powai
land, were referred to arbitration.
5.12) That, the disputes if any in question were essentially civil
13/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
disputes in respect of Varshraj Realtors. The same are being projected and
highlighted as a criminal offence. That, a perusal of the Consent Terms,
would indicate that the entire dispute is a civil-commercial dispute,
which revolves around the development rights of land at Powai, which
belongs to the Petitioner. That, a purely civil and commercial dispute, is
being converted and given a colour of a criminal offence, only to arm
twist the Petitioners to give in to the demands of the Respondent No.2.
5.13) To sum up the arguments of the Petitioner, it was submitted
that:- (i) Provisions of MCOCA have been invoked after an unexplained
delay of 9 years, maliciously and with mala fide intent against the
Petitioners ; (ii) the A-Summary report and reasons contained therein
have not been considered; (iii) the certificate as required under section
65B of the Evidence Act was not provided at the first instance, the same
is provided belatedly in the year 2022; (iv) Accused No.1 i.e Gangster
Ravi Pujari has not been prosecuted in the present case, nor is the present
case part of the extradition proceedings. That, as the main accused is not
made party, the proceedings under the MCOCA Act ought to fail. (v)
There is no evidence to indicate or show that, the call was from Gangster
Ravi Pujari was at all made, as there is no voice identification produce by
the Investigating Authority; (vi) no case of extortion is made out as no
property is delivered; and that lastly (vii) a pure civil commercial dispute
is being attempted to be converted into a criminal prosecution to arm
14/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
twist the Petitioners to give in to the unlawful/illegal demands of the
Respondent No. 2. Mr. Desai therefore prayed that, the said petition may
be allowed.
6) Mr. Mutahhar Khan, learned Advocate for the Petitioner in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2317 of 2023, adopted the submissions made
by Senior Counsel Mr. Amit Desai on behalf of the Petitioners in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024. He further submitted that :-
6.1) The transactions in respect of which the alleged threats have
been made are civil transactions pertaining to a property dispute dating
back to the year 2001. By referring to paragraph 4 of the Order dated
rd
23 December, 2021, passed in the Protest Petition, it was submitted that
further investigation was directed on the ground that, though the
Investigating Officer, had recorded the statements of the witnesses, he
himself had not properly appreciated the said statements.
6.2) As regards the prior approval and sanction, it was reiterated
that, the Sanction is accorded without application of mind in as much as
the ‘A-Summary Report’ is not considered. That, the application of mind
of the sanctioning Authority ought to be reflected in the sanctioning
order which is clearly absent. That, the only material available with the
Investigating Authority to proceed in the matter or grant prior approval
was the statement of the said witnesses who had in the year 2014 denied
of knowing gangster Ravi Pujari.
15/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
6.3) That, the Investigating agencies, even in the affidavit in reply
th
dated 28 August 2023, have not explained the contradictory statements
of the so called witnesses, who were arraigned as accused in the first
instance. That, in the proposal for prosecution in the present case, was
still in progress and the same did not form part or basis on which the
extradition of gangster Ravi Pujari was done.
th
6.4) That, perusal of the complaint dated 28 June 2012 refers to
the complaint wherein it is stated that Mr. Kishor Vatnani and Mr. Rajan
Sujanani have contacts with gangster Ravi Pujari and have dealings with
him. That, at the behest of the Ravi Pujari Gang and other unknown
persons, life threats were given to the Respondent No.2. That, perusal of
the transcripts would indicate that the name of Mr. Mangesh Sawant is
not taken or referred to in the transcripts. That, there is no case against
the Petitioner.
th
6.5) That, by an Order dated 6 September 2012 passed in Notice
of Motion No. 1481 of 2012 in Suit No. 1418 of 2012 filed by the
Complainant Mr. Kamal Sheth, the property was protected and so was the
interest of the Complainant. That, as the interest of the Complainant was
fully protected there was no question of giving any threats.
th
6.6) That, perusal of paragraph 4 of Order dated 30 October
2023, passed in Suit No. 446 of 2019, clearly indicates that the parties
have settled all disputes and have agreed to withdraw proceedings
16/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
against each other and abide by the terms of the settlement. That, the
details of the settlement of the disputes between the parties have been
mentioned. In view thereof, there was no occasion or need to threaten
the Respondent No.2.
6.7) While referring to the transcripts based on which the alleged
complaint has been filed, he submitted that the perusal of the transcripts
did not indicate or make out the case of extortion. It only refers to certain
internal civil disputes between the parties.
6.8) Mr. Khan submitted that, there is no material at all to
proceed to even frame charge against the Petitioner Mr. Sawant and
therefore the chargesheet against him be quashed and his petition may be
allowed.
7) Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Original Complainant/Respondent No. 2 submitted that:-
7.1) There is no delay in the filing of the said complaint. The first
rd
call of extortion and threat was on 3 September 2013. That the
nd
FIR/complaint dated 22 November 2013 refers to the complaints dated
th th rd
4 September 2013, 6 September 2013 and 23 September 2013, which
were immediately filed with the police authorities and investigation was
sought.
th
(i) Complaint dated 4 September 2013, was immediately made
and addressed to the Police authorities, complaining of the life threats
17/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
received from gangster Ravi Pujari at the behest of Mr. Hari A. Ramnani,
Kishor B. Vatnani and Rajan B. Sujanani. That, it is specifically asserted in
paragraphs 14 and 20 that, Hari A. Ramnani, Kishor B. Vatnani and Rajan
B. Sujanani with the aid of Mr. Ravi Pujari, his associates, Bali, and
Madhu Nimya, had threatened him with death on numerous occasions
and had extorted huge amounts from him running into crores of rupees.
th
(ii) In Complaint dated 4 September 2013, there is a specific
rd
allegation that on 3 September 2013, he received a call from gangster
Ravi Pujari, who threatened the Complainant with death, abused him and
warned him not to pursue his legal remedies against Hari Ramnani,
Kishor Vatnani, Varsha Rajan Sujanani, and Rajan B. Sujanani.
th
(iii) In the Complaint dated 6 September 2013 in para 2, it has
th
been stated that, on 4 September 2013 at around 8.10 p.m. a call was
received from Ravi Pujari who threatened the Complainant at the behest
of Hari Ramnani, Kishore Vatnani and Rajan Sujanani. That, Respondent
No.2 submitted the transcripts of the conversation to the Investigating
Authorities.
rd
(iv) In Complaint dated 23 September 2013, in paragraphs 3
and 4, the Respondent No.2 expressed his displeasure/objection to the
fact that, no action or steps were taken despite follow up/repeated
complaints. That, the Respondent No.2 was receiving threatening calls
from international numbers. That, Respondent No.2 requested that,
18/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
th th
action be taken on the complaints dated 28 June 2012, 4 September
th
2013, and 6 September 2013 and a FIR be lodged against the accused
persons named therein.
7.2) That, a perusal of the transcripts of the conversation of the
rd
3 September 2013, make out a clear and direct threat and extortion
case/call being made to the Complainant at the behest of Mr. Kishor
Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani. That, considering the complaints and the
transcripts a clear case of extortion is made out. That, in the facts of the
present case the judgment in the case of Hemant Banker Vs. State of
Maharashtra MANU/MH/2216/2023 cannot relied upon. That, it is the
case of the Respondent No.2 that, monies were in fact paid.
th
7.3) That, in statement dated 10 September 2014 the witness
Madhusudhan has stated that, he does not know Gangster Ravi Pujari
and why the Complainant had implicated the said witness. That, a joint
th
reading of the said statement and MOU dated 29 May 2012, would
indicate that the parties were known to each other as the MOU executed.
That, such statements were given due to the fear and terror of gangster
Ravi Pujari.
th
7.4) That, MOU dated 12 January 2012, would show that the
parties had executed the various MOU’s amongst themselves. While
th
referring to the statement dated 4 April 2022, recorded after the arrest
of Gangster Ravi Pujari, he submitted that, the Respondent No. 2 has
19/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
given a proper and sufficient explanation for the delay. That, as the
Respondent No. 2 was scared and terrorized of Parshuram Shinde and
Gangster Ravi Pujari, he had not informed the Anti-Extortion Cell of the
th
true and correct facts in his statement of 10 September 2014. That, in
the year 2021 after Gangster Ravi Pujari was arrested and Parshuram
Shinde expired the threat perception of the witness reduced and
therefore he has given the supplementary statement wherein he has given
all the details in respect of the said offence. That, the delay has been
explained in the statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
th
7.5) That, the Panchanama dated 30 November 2023 by which
the transcripts of the conversation between the Ravi Pujari and the
complainant Kamal Sheth have been extracted clearly make out the case
of extortion.
th
7.6) While referring to the statement dated 6 August 2022, it
was submitted that, after the Protest petition challenging the ‘A-summary
Report’ was allowed, a proper and through investigation was carried out,
pursuant to which the provisions of MCOCA have been rightly invoked
and applied. That, the complaint and transcripts clearly make out a prima
facie case. That, the ground of delay in invoking the provisions of
MCOCA, the challenge to the sanction and argument of non-submission
of the 65-B certificate can all be dealt with effectively by the Petitioners
20/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
at the stage and time of the trial.
th
7.7) That, the statement dated 27 May 2014, indicates that
before the A-summary Report was filed, some other builders were also
th th
threatened. That,vide statements dated 29 July 2022 and 12 December
2022 the proximity of the Kishor Vatanani and Rajan Sujanani with the
Ravi Pujari and the gang is clearly made out. That, the statements and
the transcripts clearly make out a strong prima facie case for the offence
of extortion. That, the provisions of the MCOCA Act are rightly invoked.
7.8) As regards the delay, it was submitted that, the complaint
has been made at the earliest point in time. That, Respondent No.2 has
followed up with the investigating authorities. That, the reasons for the
delay, though belated have been properly and adequately explained and
the explanation is reasonable and plausible. That, it was only due to the
threats/threat perception that, the witnesses were scared and did not
initially depose to the true and correct facts. That, there is enough
material in the form of statements and transcripts to make out a case
that, threats were given and that the offence of extortion committed.
7.9) That, the aspect of delay in invoking the provision of
MCOCA, is for the Investigating Officer, to explain. On a prima facie view,
the delay has been properly explained. That, for the fault of the
investigating officer or machinery, a criminal prosecution in which,
otherwise prima facie case has been made out cannot and ought not to be
21/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
thrown out. That, it was possible for the Investigating Officer to file the
chargesheet as material was available and there was no reason to
conclude that, the allegations are true but not detected. That, for the
omissions and or acts of negligence of the Investigating Officer, the
Respondent No.2 should not be made to suffer.
7.10) That, the provisions of MCOCA have been rightly invoked as
the required ingredients have been made out and adequately fulfilled.
That Ravi Pujari, is the head of the organization and the necessary
chargesheets have been filed against his syndicate. That, even if the head
of the organization cannot be tried, the other accused may be proceeded
with.
7.11) That, it is not the case of the Petitioner that, the Complaint is
fabricated or false. The complaint is genuine as the complaint/FIR have
filed with Investigating Officer of the Police Stations at the first given
opportunity and that the delay has been properly explained.
8) Mr. Satpute the learned APP appearing for the Respondent-
State, adopted and reiterated the arguments advanced for and on behalf
of the Respondent No.2. The learned APP further submitted that:-
8.1) The ‘A-Summary Report’ has in fact been taken into
th
consideration while passing the Order dated 12 September 2022. That,
pursuant to the Protest Petition being allowed, a further investigation was
carried out and the provisions of MCOCA, have been rightly invoked.
22/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
th
8.2) On 30 July 2022, the voice sample of the Respondent No.2
th
was taken in the Memory Card under the Panchanama dated 30
November 2013 in connection with the C.D. containing the conversation
between the Gangster Ravi Pujari and the Complainant. That, the
st
Memory Card, was seized under the Panchanama dated 1 August 2022.
th
8.3) That, on 10 September 2014 the Investigating Officer
recorded the statement of the witness wherein he has stated that, he
knows the accused Satish Dhanani as he was previously residing in the
said vicinity. That, in the year 2011 arrested accused Satish Dhanani
requested witness to resolve disputes of one builder who was not giving
possession of their flats at Andheri, Dahisar and Borivali. That, the
witness knew wanted accused Parshuram Shinde. That, a meeting was
organized with Parshuram Shinde, which meeting, was attended by
Satish Dhanani, Hari Ramnani, Kishor Vatnani and the Petitioner Mr.
th
Sawant. That, two M.O.U’s were executed on 12 January 2012.
nd
8.4) While referring to the statement dated 22 November 2013,
it was submitted that, in fact there is no delay in lodging of the FIR. As
regards the delay, it was submitted that, a satisfactory explanation is
available on record in the form of recorded statements. That, it was due
to the threats and atmosphere of terror created by gangster Ravi Pujari,
the witnesses were not coming forward to give a statement. That, the
witnesses were scared and terrified. That, the delay has also been
23/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
th
explained in the statement dated 4 April 2022 to state that after the
arrest of gangster Ravi Pujari and the death of Parshuram Shinde, the
witness gathered the courage to speak up and give the statements. That
the explanation of the delay is reasonable, true and correct.
8.5) The statements, clearly make out an offence of extortion.
That, a clear prima facie case has been made out. That, even the
ingredients essential for making out the case of MCOCA, are clearly made
out. That, there is continuing unlawful activity which carried out and
executed individually, singularly or jointly and that activity is either by
particular of organized crime or on behalf of syndicate. That, there has
been a clear use of threat and intimidation and other unlawful means.
That, the activity has been carried out with an object of pecuniary gain.
That, the activity is prohibited by the law. That, a clear case under the
provisions of MCOCA has been made out by the Respondent-State.
8.6) That, considering the facts and circumstances and the
material available on record a prima facie case has been made out. That,
no case is made out for exercising the power under Section 482.
9) At this stage we deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant
provisions of The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999,
(MCOCA/said Act) and the relevant judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, in support of their respective
arguments.
24/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
th
9.1) MCOCA, which came into force on 24 February 1999, is a
special legislation enacted to make provisions for prevention and control
of and for coping with, criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or
gang and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Certain
provisions of MCOCA, that would be necessary to be considered are as
under:-
9.2) Under the said Act section 2(1)(a) defines the act of
abetment.
“Abet” , with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes-
(i) the communication or association with any person with the
actual knowledge or having reason to believe that such
person is engaged in assisting in any manner , an organised
crime syndicate;
(ii) the passing on or publication of, without any lawful
authority, any information likely to assist the organized crime
syndicate and the passing on or publication of or distribution
of any document or matter obtained from the organized
crime syndicate; and
(iii) the rendering of any assistance, whether financial or
otherwise, to the organised crime syndicate.
9.3) Section 2(1) (d) of the said Act defines a continuing
unlawful activity” to mean an activity prohibited by law for the time
25/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
being in force, which is cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment
of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of
an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of
which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent
Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken
cognizance of such offence.
9.4) Section 2(1)(e) of the said Act defines “organised crime” to
mean, any continuing unlawful activity, by an individual, singly or jointly,
either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such
syndicate,-
(i) by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or
coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of
gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or
other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting
insurgency, or
(ii) by cultivating, producing manufacturing, possessing, selling,
purchasing, transporting or storing of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances in commercial quantity, as notified
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (61 of 1985), in contravention of the said Act or rules
framed thereunder, with the objective of gaining pecuniary
benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for
26/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
himself or any other person;
9.5) Section 2(1) (f) of the said Act defines the term “organised
crime syndicate” to mean a group of two or more persons who, acting
either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of
organised crime;
9.6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek vs. State
of Maharashtra & ors. (SLP. Cri. No. 1157/2022 – Supreme Court) while
referring to paragraph No. 18.2 has observed that:-
“18.2. The learned counsel for the State has fairly and rightly
indicated, with reference to the decision of this Court in the case of
Vinod G. Asrani (supra), that the validity of sanction could always
be determined by the Trial Court during the course of trial where
sanctioning authority could be examined and the appellant will
have sufficient opportunity to contest the same, including that of
cross-examining the sanctioning authority. In fact, the High Court
has also taken care in its impugned order to make it clear that the
observations were only prima facie and nothing in the order would
influence or prejudice the trial or pre-empt any legitimate defence
of the appellant. In Vinod G. Asrani (supra), this Court has
observed and held as under:-
“9....The scheme under Section 23 of MCOCA is similar and
Section 23(1)(a) provides a safeguard that no investigation
into an offence under MCOCA should be commenced without
the approval of the authorities concerned. Once such approval
is obtained, an investigation is commenced. Those who are
subsequently found to be involved in the commission of the
organised crime can very well be proceeded against once
sanction is obtained against them under Section 23(2) of
MCOCA.
10. As to whether any offence has at all been made out against
the petitioner for prosecution under MCOCA, the High Court
27/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
has rightly pointed out that the accused will have sufficient
opportunity to contest the same before the Special Court."
9.7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavitha Lankesh
vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. Reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 956 has
observed that:-
“25. ……
85 . A reading of para 31 in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma case
[ Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra , (2005)
5 SCC 294 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057] shows that in order to invoke
M COCA even if a person may or may not have any direct role to play
as regards the commission of an organised crime, if a nexus either
with an accused who is a member of an “organised crime
syndicate” or with the offence in the nature of an “organised crime”
is established that would attract the invocation of Section 3(2) of
the M COCA . Therefore, even if one may not have any direct role to
play relating to the commission of an “organised crime”, but when
the nexus of such person with an accused who is a member of the
“organised crime syndicate” or such nexus is related to the offence
in the nature of “organised crime” is established by showing his
involvement with the accused or the offence in the nature of such
“organised crime”, that by itself would attract the provisions of
COCA
M . The said statement of law by this Court, therefore, makes
COCA
the position clear as to in what circumstances M can be
applied in respect of a person depending upon his involvement in
an organised crime in the manner set out in the said paragraph.
26. …. As aforesaid, while considering the proposal for grant of
prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, what is
essential is the satisfaction of the competent authority that the
material placed before him does reveal presence of credible
information regarding commission of an offence of organised crime
by the organised crime syndicate and, therefore, allow invocation
of Section 3 of the 2000 Act. As a consequence of which,
investigation of that crime can be taken forward by the
investigating agency and charge-sheet can be filed before the court
28/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
concerned and upon grant of sanction by the competent
authority under Section 24(2), the competent court can take
cognizance of the case.
27. At the stage of granting prior approval under Section 24(1)
(a) of the 2000 Act, therefore, the competent authority is not
required to wade through the material placed by the investigating
agency before him along with the proposal for grant of prior
approval to ascertain the specific role of each accused. The
competent authority has to focus essentially on the factum whether
the information/material reveals the commission of a crime which
is an organised crime committed by the organised crime syndicate.
In that, the prior approval is qua offence and not the offender as
such. As long as the incidents referred to in earlier crimes are
committed by a group of persons and one common individual was
involved in all the incidents, the offence under the 2000 Act can be
invoked. This Court in Prasad Shrikant Purohit [Prasad Shrikant
Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 7 SCC 440 : (2015) 3 SCC
(Cri) 138] in SCC paras 61 and 98 expounded that at the stage of
taking cognizance, the competent court takes cognizance of the
offence and not the offender. This analogy applies even at the stage
of grant of prior approval for invocation of provisions of the 2000
Act. The prior sanction under Section 24(2), however, may require
enquiry into the specific role of the offender in the commission of
organised crime, namely, he himself singly or jointly or as a
member of the organised crime syndicate indulged in commission
of the stated offences so as to attract the punishment provided
under Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act. However, if the role of the
offender is merely that of a facilitator or of an abettor as referred to
in Sections 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) or 3(5), the requirement of named
person being involved in more than two charge-sheets registered
against him in the past is not relevant. Regardless of that, he can be
proceeded under the 2000 Act, if the material collected by the
investigating agency reveals that he had nexus with the accused
who is a member of the organised crime syndicate or such nexus is
related to the offence in the nature of organised crime. Thus, he
need not be a person who had direct role in the commission of an
organised crime as such.”
29/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
9.8) This Court in the case of Govind Sakharam Ubhe vs. State of
Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 18/2009 – Bombay High Court) while
referring to para no. 37.
“37. But even otherwise, if all provisions are read together we
reach the same conclusion. Section 2(1)(d) which defines
continuing unlawful activity' sets down a period of 10 years within
which more than one charge- sheet have to be filed. The members
of the crime syndicate operate either singly or jointly in commission
of organized crime. They operate in different modules. A person
may be a part of the module which jointly undertakes an organized
crime or he may singly as a member of the organized crime
syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate undertake an organized
crime. In both the situations, the MCOCA can be applied. It is the
membership of organized crime syndicate which makes a person
liable under the MCOCA. This is evident from section 3(4) of the
MCOCA which states that any person who is a member of an
organized crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a
minimum of fine of Rs.5 lakhs. The charge under the MCOCA ropes
in a person who as a member of the organized crime syndicate
commits organized crime i.e. acts of extortion by giving threats, etc.
to gain economic advantage or supremacy, as a member of the
crime syndicate singly or jointly. Charge is in respect of unlawful
activities of the organized crime syndicate. Therefore, if within a
period of preceding ten years, one charge-sheet has been filed in
respect of organized crime committed by the members of a
particular crime syndicate, the said charge-sheet can be taken
against a member of the said crime syndicate for the purpose of
application of the MCOCA against him even if he is involved in one
case. The organized crime committed by him will be a part of the
continuing unlawful activity of the organized crime syndicate. What
is important is the nexus or the link of the person with organized
crime syndicate. The link with the organized crime syndicate' is the
crux of the term 'continuing unlawful activity. If this link is not
30/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
established, that person cannot be roped in.”
9.9) This Court in the case of Anil Sadashiv Naduskar vs. State of
Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 536/2007 - Bombay High Court)
while referring to para nos. 13, 18, 19, 24 and 25 observed that:-
“13. The settled law by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court is
to the effect that it is desirable that every order whether the
approval or sanction it should speak for itself, i.e. ex-facie it should
disclose consideration of the materials placed before it and
application of mind thereto. However, failure to reproduce or refer
those recitals in the resolution or order itself would not render the
order of approval or sanction to be invalid unless the prosecution
fails to establish by leading evidence that all the materials
necessary for the grant of approval or sanction were placed before
the concerned authority for due application of mind by such
authority before the grant of approval and or sanction. It
apparently discloses that question of validity of approval or
sanction cannot be decided unless the prosecution is afforded
opportunity to lead evidence in that regard. Undoubtedly, an
accused desiring to raise objection regarding the defects in such
approval or sanction, or grant, he can raise such objection;
however, for conclusive decision on the said point the accused has
to wait till the trial is complete and on that ground he cannot insist
for discharge unless the objection relates to inherent lack of
jurisdiction to the concerned authority to grant sanction or
approval and such issue can be decided on undisputed facts. The
law being well settled to the effect that the prosecution in a case
where sanction or the approval order does not ex-facie show
consideration of all the materials and/or application of mind, is
entitled to establish the same by leading necessary evidence
regarding production of materials before the concerned authority,
the question of discharge of accused merely on the basis of such
objection being raised cannot arise. The decision on the point of
defect, if any, in the order of approval or sanction will have to be at
the conclusion of the trial.
18. In the case in hand it is not in dispute that such approval was
in writing granted on 28th August 2004. Whether it was on proper
application of mind on the basis of the materials placed before the
concerned authority or not and whether all the required materials
31/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
were actually placed before the concerned authority or not, are the
points to be decided at the conclusion of the trial so that the
prosecution gets sufficient opportunity to establish all the facts
necessary to prove the valid approval and sanction for the
prosecution.
19. As regards the sanction dated 7th January 2005, according
to the appellant it does not disclose consideration of materials qua
each of the accused in relation to the alleged offence for which the
sanction has been granted. The contention is devoid of substance as
the law on the point is well settled to the effect that in case the
sanction document on the face of it does not disclose consideration
of all the materials by the concerned authority, nothing prevents
the prosecution from establishing the said fact by leading
appropriate evidence in that regard.
24. The contention that the order of approval or order of
sanction should disclose consideration of material qua each of the
accused sought to be prosecuted is devoid of substance. That is not
the import of section 23 of mcoc act. section 23(1)(a) as well as
section 23(2) with reference to approval and sanction speaks of
commission of offence and cognizance of the offence. In fact the
law on this aspect is also well settled and reiterate by the Apex
Court in Dilawar Singh's case (supra) itself. It was held therein that,
court takes cognizance of offence and not of an offender when a
Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, under Section 190
Cr.P.C. Undoubtedly, it was also held that it was necessary for the
Sanctioning Authority to take note of the persons against whom the
sanction is sought to be granted. However, those were the
requirement under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The said section specifically requires sanction with reference to a
particular person. That is not the case under section 23 either in
relation to the approval or in relation to the sanction. As already
seen above section 23(1) (a) of MCOC Act speaks of approval for
recording of information about commission of offence of organized
crime under MCOC Act, whereas sanction is for initiating
proceeding for the offence under MCOC Act. The sanction order or
the approval order on the face of it need not speak of the individual
role of each of the accused. Being so, contention that the order of
approval or sanction should reveal consideration of the overt acts
or otherwise of each of the accused while granting approval or
sanction is totally devoid of substance. Of course, the involvement
in organized crime of each of the persons sought to be prosecuted
should necessarily be considered by the concerned authority before
32/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
the grant of approval or sanction, but need not be specifically
stated in the order and the consideration thereof can be established
in the course of trial.
25. It was also sought to be argued that the rule that the
application of mind can be established by leading evidence would
not apply in case of written approval or written sanction. As
already held above the law on the point that the prosecution is
entitled to establish the fact of application of mind by the
concerned authority by leading evidence is well settled, and it
makes no difference whether order is a written and or order. It was
also sought to be argued that question of invoking or applying the
provisions of MCOC Act cannot arise without approval and sanction
order discloses involvement of the appellant in an organized crime
within the meaning of said expression under the said Act in as
much as that the activities of the appellant are not disclosed to
have been carried out with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits
or economic gains. It is the contention on behalf of the appellant
that though the sanction order refers to such activities, there is no
reference to that effect in the order of approval. Again this is a
matter for evidence. The order of the approval on the face of it may
not disclose involvement of the appellant in the activities being
carried with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits or economic
gain. Whether organized crime is restricted to the activities carried
out with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits or economic gains
or whether it would apply even to the activities which are carried
with the object of gaining other advantages for himself or for any
person and whether the expression "such any other advantage"
would include activities carried out with the object other than the
economic gain or pecuniary benefit, all these factors will have to be
decided on the basis of the evidence to be led by the prosecution.
To what extent activities were either to the advantage of the
appellant himself or any other person is a matter of evidence, to be
decided, based on the materials to be placed on record in the
course of evidence and it is too early to make any judicial
pronouncement in that regard.”
9.10) This Court in the case of Mahesh Gajanan Tapase vs. State of
Maharashtra & ors.(2020 SCC Online Bom 1505 – Bombay High Court)
while referring to para no. 16 observed that:-
33/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
“16. All this material has been rightly considered by the authority
while passing the order under Section 23 of MCOCA for granting
prior approval. Perusal of the order of grant of prior approval
demonstrates that the material placed before it was considered and
there is application of mind in appreciating the said material. The
question of validity of prior approval and sanction cannot be
decided unless the Respondent/Prosecution is given an opportunity
to lead evidence in that regard. Perusal of the order granting prior
approval, as observed hereinabove, speaks of total number of
offences committed in last 10 years by the accused persons.”
9.11) In the case of Sagar Balasaheb Gaikwad vs. State of
Maharashtra (2021) SCC Online Bom 447, this Court while referring to
and following the law as laid down by this Court in case of Anil Sadashiv
Nanduskar (Supra) and Govind S Ubhe (Supra) in paragraphs 7 to 9, in
paragraph 10 observed that:-
“10. In the case of Farman Imran Shah @ Karu v. State of
Maharashtra (supra) another Division Bench of this Court while
relying upon the aforementioned Judgment in the case of Anil
Sadashiv Nanduskar v. State of Maharashtra (supra) held that the
prosecution has to be offered an opportunity to lead evidence with
regard to subjective satisfaction recorded by the Competent
Authority while issuing the sanction order.”
9.12) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
& ors vs. Bhajan Lal & ors 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 has
in para no. 108 observed that:-
“108. ……. If the allegations are bereft of truth and made
maliciously, we are sure, the investigation will say so. At this stage,
when there are only allegations and recriminations but no
evidence, this court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation
and render a finding on the question of mala fides on the materials
at present available. Therefore, we are unable to see any force in
the contention that the complaint should be thrown overboard on
34/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
the mere unsubstantiated plea of mala fides. Even assuming that
Dharam Pal has laid the complaint only on account of his personal
animosity, that, by itself, will not be a ground to discard the
complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested
and weighed after the evidence is collected. In this connection, the
following view expressed by Bhagwati, C.J. in Sheonandan Paswan
v. State of Bihar [(1987) 1 SCC 288, 318 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 82] may
be referred to : (SCC p. 318, para 16)
“It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal
prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate
evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or
political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant.”
Beyond the above, we do not wish to add anything more.”
9.13) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Shilpa Jain & ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1565-1567 of 2024 –
Supreme Court) while referring para nos. 8, 10 and 11 observed that:-
“8. The sequitur to the aforesaid discussion is that the High Court
proceeded on an erroneous assumption i.e., that the State of
Madhya Pradesh failed to prove its title qua the Suit Property.
10. Additionally, we are conscious of the interplay between civil
disputes and criminal proceedings, in this regard we find it
appropriate to refer to a decision of this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v.
State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein this Court observed as
under:
“8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the
growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the
cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and
purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the
accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the
accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that
proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to
pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. U (See G. Sagar Suri v.
State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] and
Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 736 :
(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] ) Let us examine the matter keeping
35/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
the said principles in mind.”
11. Having considered the materials on record, we are of the
considered opinion that neither does the present case satisfy any of
the parameters laid down by this Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra)
warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
CrPC vis-à-vis the quashing of an FIR; and nor can the allegation(s)
levelled against the accused person(s) be classified as ‘purely civil
in nature’ or merely ‘cloaked as a criminal offence’. Undoubtedly,
the genesis of the present dispute emanates from civil proceedings
qua the possession of the Suit Property, however, the dispute in its
current avatar i.e. as is discernible from the allegation levelled
against the Respondents in the FIR, has certainly undergone a
metamorphosis into a criminal dispute which ought not to have
been scuttled at the threshold, and in fact ought to have been
considered on its own merits, in accordance with law.
9.14) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. M. Devendrappa reported in (2002) 3 SCC 89 observed that:-.
“7. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab¹ this Court summarized some
categories of cases where inherent power can and should be
exercised to quash the proceedings.
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or
complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety
do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no
legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge.
8. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind
the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or
where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the
accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which,
on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High
Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable
appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the
function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an
instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be
circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take
36/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before
issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a
private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person
needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument
handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring
about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under
Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High
Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable
offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court
2
in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal . A note of caution was, however,
added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in
rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this
Court are as follows: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
37/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge."
9. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude
of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be
careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on
sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to
stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest
court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie
decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy,
more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced
before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal,
are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be
laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise
its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any
stage. (See: Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary³, and Raghubir Saran
(Dr) v. State of Bihar.) It would not be proper for the High Court to
analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities
in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable
and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings
are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material
before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded
with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the
inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a
case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is
frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has
been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash
the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be
meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether
the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to
be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the
allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the
complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are
disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is
mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no
justification for interference by the High Court. When an
information is lodged at the police station and an offence is
registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of
secondary importance. It is the material collected during the
38/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of
the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the
informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the
basis for quashing the proceedings…”
9.15) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Abhishek Singh
Vs. Ajay Kumar And Ors., (SLP (Cri.) No. 480/2025) observed that:-
“9. …..The task of the High Court, when called upon to adjudicate
an application seeking to quash the proceedings, is to see whether,
prima facie, an offence is made out or not. It is not to examine
whether the charges may hold up in the Court. In doing so, the
area of action is circumscribed. In Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, it was
held:
“8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under
Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when
an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes
the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by
the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse
of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the
accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court,
except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of
the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court
cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while
considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for
quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid
down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out
disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding."
9.16) In the case of Rajendra Bihari Lal and Another Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2265, while
following the principles it had laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal
(Supra) in paragraph 83 observed that :-
“83. What should be the approach of the court in cases where an
accused seeks quashing of an FIR or proceedings on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, or vexatious, or
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance was
39/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
delineated by this Court in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023
SCC OnLine SC 951, wherein one of us, J.B. Pardiwala, J., speaking
for the Bench held that the courts owe a duty to look into other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, and
if need be, read between the lines. We may refer to the following
observations for the benefit of exposition:
“36. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that
such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then
in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the
FIR with care and a little more closely.
37. We say so because once the complainant decides to
proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he would ensure that
the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments
made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.
Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into
the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose
of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute
the alleged offence are disclosed or not.
38. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try
to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the
Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case
but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for
instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered
over a period of time. It is in the background of such
circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance
out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”
40/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
(Emphasis supplied)
9.17) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemant Banker
V/s State of Maharashtra, reported in MANU/MH/2216/2023 has
observed that:-
“12. Now, if we take a look at the impugned order passed under
Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act dated 22nd September 2021, we
would find that the offences punishable under Sections 387and
120(B), read with Section 34 of IPC, registered against the
applicants, weighed with the authority while granting its approval
for proceeding against these applicants under the provisions of
MCOC Act. The fact of registration of FIR against the applicant
Hemant Banker for an offence punishable under Section 387
having been taken into account by the authority granting approval
under Section 23(1) (a) of the MCOC Act was noted by the Apex
Court and, therefore, it observed that it was necessary to bestow
serious consideration in regard to the one based on Section 387 of
IPC. This background of facts would make it necessary for us to
consider first as to whether or not the allegations as made and the
material as available, taken at face value without adding anything
to the same and without subtracting anything from the same, are
sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 387 of
IPC and also offence punishable under Section 120(B) of IPC
against the applicants. This is the principle of law which governs
exercise of power of this court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. This principle of law is now well embedded in
our criminal jurisprudence. …..
14. ….. The term "Extortion" is defined in Section 383 and it reads
thus:-
"383. Extortion Whoever intentionally puts any person in
fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby
dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to
any person any property or valuable security, or anything
signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable
security, commits "extortion".
15. This definition indicates following ingredients of the offence of
extortion, which must be present for constituting it.
(i) Intentionally putting any person in fear of injury to that
person or any other person;
41/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
(ii) Inducing of the person so put in fear dishonestly;
(iii) Delivery to any person any property or valuable security by
the person put in fear and subjected to dishonest inducement.
If any of these ingredients is absent, the offence of extortion would
not be complete, a held in the case of Dhananjay alias Dhananjay
Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and An MANU/SC/7061/2007:
(2007) 14 SCC 768. In an earlier case of R.S. Nayak Vs. A. R.
Antulay and Anr. MANU/SC/0198/1986: (1986) 2 SCC 716,
similar view was taken by the Apex Court.
16. In the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. MANU/SC/0725/2013: (2014) 15 SCC 357,
the Apex Court has held that, unless property is delivered to the
accused person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is
made out and the FIR for the offence under Section 384 cannot be
registered by the police. Relevant observations of the Apex Court,
appearing in paragraph 3 of the judgment, are reproduced thus :-
"3. We have read the FIR, which has been annexed to the writ
petition as Annexure P-7 and we find therefrom that the
complainants have alleged that the accused persons have
shown copies of international warrants issued against the
complainants by the Ugandan Court and letters written by
Uganda Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the
accused have threatened to extort 20 million dollars
(equivalent to Rs.110 crores). In the complaint, there is no
mention whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the
accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the
complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence
of extortion as defined in Section 383 IPC is made out."
20. …..On a careful perusal of the FIR, we find that there is not
a single allegation made against either of these applicants that
they or any one of them intentionally put the complainant or any
other person in fear of death or of grievous hurt and thereby
dishonestly induced the complainant or any other person to make
investment in the business of the complainant in January, 2018.”
9.18) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Balaji Traders
vs. The State of U.P. & anr (SLP. Cri. No.3159/2025) while referring to
para nos. 13, 14, 15, 16.:-
“13. But a perusal of Section 387 IPC reveals its essential
42/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
ingredients, to be:
(a) Accused must have put a person in fear of death or
grievous hurt;
(b) Such an act must have been done in order to commit
extortion;
The expression 'in order to' has been defined in the following
ways:
13
"in order to": for the purpose of
14
"in order to": with the purpose of doing
'in order to commit extortion' clearly reveals that it is in the
process of committing the offence of extortion.
14. Thus, it can be said in terms of Sections 386 (an aggravated
form of 384 IPC) and 387 IPC that the former is an act in itself,
whereas the latter is the process; it is a stage before committing an
offence of extortion. The Legislature was mindful enough to
criminalize the process by making it a distinct offence. Therefore,
the commission of an offence of extortion is not sine qua non for
an offence under this Section. It is safe to deduce that for
prosecution under Section 387 IPC, the delivery of property is not
necessary.
15,
15. In Radha Ballabh v. State of U.P. this Court, while dealing
with a case wherein ransom was demanded for releasing the child,
observed that it could not be punishable under Section 386 IPC as
no ransom was extorted. Therefore, the conviction was correctly
made under Section 387 IPC. Similarly, in Gursharan Singh v. State
16,
of Punjab the Court upheld the conviction under Section 387 IPC
where money extorted was not paid.
17
16. Further, in Somasundaram v. State a three-Judge Bench of
this Court upheld the conviction under Section 387 IPC, along with
other provisions, on the facts, where the deceased was tied with an
iron chain and rope to a cot and threatened to part with crores of
rupees or else execute the document in their favour. On his failure
to do so, the deceased was killed. Thus, even though there was no
delivery of property, the conviction was upheld by observing that
Section 387 IPC is a heightened, more serious form of the offence
of extortion in which the victim is put in fear of death or grievous
hurt.”
9.19) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punit Beriwala vs.
State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1834/2025- Supreme
43/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
Court) while referring Para nos. 36, 37 and 40 observed that:-
“36. Further, accepting the reasoning given by the learned Single
Judge in the impugned order that 'there had been a delay in
registration of the FIR and because of such delay, the allegations
made by the Appellant are unbelievable' and the submissions of
learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that no
complaint/FIR should be entertained 'at this distance of time',
would mean in effect in accepting the argument that delay is a
sufficient ground for quashing of the present FIR/complaint.
37. It is settled law that delay in registration of the FIR for
offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years
cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation. The
delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to
give a plausible explanation and whether the explanation is
plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only after
recording the evidence. In this context, the Supreme Court in
Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others (2021) 5 SCC 795 has held, "The mere delay
on the part of the third respondent complainant in lodging the
complaint, cannot by itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The law is
too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to
precedents..….
40. Even otherwise, as the learned senior counsel for the
Appellant has rightly pointed out, in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C.,
there is no period of limitation for offences which are punishable
with imprisonment of more than three years.”
9.20) In the case of State of Bihar And Anr. Vs. P. P. Sharma, IAS
and Anr, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 held that:-
“49. The focal point from the above background is whether the
charge-sheets are vitiated by the alleged mala fides on the part of
either of the complainant R.K. Singh or the Investigating Officer
G.M. Sharma. In Judicial Review of Administrative Action S.A. de
Smith, (3rd edn. at p. 293 [Ed.: 4th Edn., p. 335] ) stated that:
“The concept of bad faith … in relation to the exercise of
statutory powers … comprise dishonesty (or fraud) and malice.
A power is exercised fraudulently if its repository intends to
achieve an object other than that for which he believes the
44/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
power to have been conferred. His intention may be to promote
another public interest or private interests. A power is exercised
maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity
towards those who are directly affected by its exercise …. The
administrative discretion means power of being administratively
discreet. It implies authority to do an act or to decide a matter a
discretion.”
The administrative authority is free to act in its discretion if he
deems necessary or if he or it is satisfied of the immediacy of
official action on his or its part. His responsibility lies only to the
superiors and the Government. The power to act in discretion is
not power to act ad-arbitrarium. It is not a despotic power, nor
hedged with arbitrariness, nor legal irresponsibility to exercise
discretionary power in excess of the statutory ground disregarding
the prescribed conditions for ulterior motive. If done it brings the
authority concerned in conflict with law. When the power is
exercised mala fide it undoubtedly gets vitiated by colourable
exercise of power.
50. Mala fides means want of good faith, personal bias, grudge,
oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose. The administrative
action must be said to be done in good faith, if it is in fact done
honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. An act done
honestly is deemed to have been done in good faith. An
administrative authority must, therefore, act in a bona fide manner
and should never act for an improper motive or ulterior purposes
or contrary to the requirements of the statute, or the basis of the
circumstances contemplated by law, or improperly exercised
discretion to achieve some ulterior purpose. The determination of a
plea of mala fide involves two questions, namely (i) whether there
is a personal bias or an oblique motive, and (ii) whether the
administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and
conditions of a valid exercise of administrative power.
58. It is undoubted that no one should unnecessarily be harassed
or face an ordeal of criminal trial unless sufficient materials are
collected during the investigation disclosing the crime committed.
The Investigating Officer is not to act on a preconceived idea of
guilt of the accused. The Investigating Officer is expected to gather
the entire material, so that the truth or falsehood of the accusation
may be found by the court at the trial. The Investigating Officer is
expected to investigate justly and fairly, but the evidence collected
at the investigation is not be-all and end-all. At the stage of trial
the opportunity is wide open to the accused to cross-examine the
45/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
witnesses and if he deems necessary to adduce the defence
evidence and to test the veracity of the evidence collected during
the investigation.”
9.21) In the case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. Vs. State
of Gujarat and Ors. Reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158 has observed that :-
“61. In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be
circumspect in evaluating the evidence and may have to adopt an
active and analytical role to ensure that truth is found by having
recourse to Section 311 or at a later stage also resorting to Section
391 instead of throwing hands in the air in despair. It would not be
right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the
defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the
investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.
(See Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [(1995) 5 SCC 518 : 1995 SCC
(Cri) 977] )
62. In Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1999) 2 SCC 126 : 1999
SCC (Cri) 104 (para 8)] it was held that if the lapse or omission is
committed by the investigating agency designedly or because of
negligence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined
dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is
reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not
stand in the way of courts getting at the truth by having recourse
to Sections 311, 391 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence
Act at the appropriate and relevant stages and evaluating the
entire evidence; otherwise the designed mischief would be
perpetuated with a premium to the offenders and justice would not
only be denied to the complainant party but also made an ultimate
casualty.
63. As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar
[(1998) 4 SCC 517 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1085] if primacy is given to
such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses
by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence
of the people would be shaken not only in the law-enforcing
agency but also in the administration of justice in the hands of
courts. The view was again reiterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder
Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 518 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 641] .”
9.22) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.S. Prasad v. C.
46/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
Satyakumar, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 50, observed that:-
“26. In the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the
proceedings primarily on the ground that the validity of the
settlement deeds has been upheld in the proceedings before the
Civil Court. We are of the view that this approach adopted by the
High Court is not correct. It is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that civil liability and criminal liability may arise
from the same set of facts and that the pendency or conclusion of
civil proceedings does not bar prosecution where the ingredients of
a criminal offence are disclosed. In Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S.
7
Reddy , this Court had made it crystal clear that “pendency of civil
proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties
is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie
case exists against the accused persons.”
27. Adjudication in civil matters and criminal prosecution
proceed on different principles. The decree passed by the Civil
Court neither records findings on criminal intent nor on the
existence of offences such as forgery, cheating, or use of forged
documents. Therefore, civil adjudication cannot always be treated
as determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of quashment.
Moreover, in the case at hand, the civil proceedings have not
attained finality.
28. Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents
in relation to a settlement deed will always carry a civil element.
Therefore, there cannot be any general proposition that whenever
dispute involves a civil element, a criminal proceeding cannot go
on. Criminal liability must be examined independently. Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to acquittal only upon failure of proof in
the trial and not at the threshold jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr. P.C. To permit quashing on the sole ground of a civil suit
would encourage unscrupulous litigants to defeat criminal
prosecution by instituting civil proceedings.”
10) We have perused the entire record. From a perusal of the
record, the following facts emerge:-
(i) That, there were disputes and litigations filed and
pending in respect of development/commercial development of
47/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
land between the parties.
th
(ii) That, the Respondent No. 2, on 28 June 2012, filed a
complaint with the Jt. Commissioner of Police/Crime Mumbai
alleging that threats were given by Mr. Kishor Vatnani and Mr.
rd th
Rajan Sujanani. That, on 3 September 2013 and 4 September
2013, the Respondent No. 2 received the extortion calls, wherein,
the caller identified himself as gangster Ravi Pujari and after
threatening the Respondent No.2 with dire consequences of death,
directed him to settle the ongoing disputes with Mr. Kishore Vatnani
and Mr. Rajan Sujanani.
(iii) That, multiple international calls were received by the
Respondent No. 2, which he, due to fear, possibly did not answer.
(iv) That, on 22nd November 2013 FIR bearing No. 203 of
2013 was registered with the Juhu Police Station, under Section
387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (later transferred to Anti
Extortion Cell as FIR No. 115 of 2023). That, between June and
September 2014 statements of witnesses who claimed that they did
not know Ravi Pujari or Parshuram Shinde. The witness denied
facts.
th
(v) On 16 December 2015, in respect of FIR No. 115 of
rd
2023, A-summary report was filed. On 23 August 2017, the
Respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition against the A-summary.
48/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
st
(vi) On 21 February 2020 Gangster Ravi Pujari was
extradited to India from Senigal.
rd
vii) On 23 December 2021, learned Additional Chief
rd
Metropolitan Magistrate, 37 Esplanade Court allowed the Protest
petition and ordered further investigation.
(viii) During the further investigation, between April to
August 2022, statements of several witnesses were recorded. Based
inter alia on the witness statements, investigation, complaints and
transcripts on 12th September 2022 prior approval under Section
23(1)(a) of MCOCA, 1999 was granted by the Joint Commissioner
st
of Police. On 21 February 2023, sanction under Section 23(2) of
the MCOCA was accorded by Special Commissioner of Police.
11) We have also perused the statement of the witness, wherein
it is stated that in the year 2007-2008, Mr. Kishor Vatnani had called the
said witness at his office/house at Parasi Panchayat Road, Senior
Estate,Near Sona Udyog, Andheri (East) for a meeting which was
attended by Mr. Hari Ramanani, Mr. Kishor Vatnani, Mr. Satish Dhanani
and Mr. Rajan Sujanani. At the said meeting, Mr. Kishor Vatnani and
others again discussed the settlement issues in respect of the land at
Powai. Mr. Kishor Vatnani informed the witness that one Pramod, person
of Ravi Pujari will meet at Samata Nagar in front of Police Chowki, and
that he would be wearing blue color shirt. Mr. Kishor Vatnani further told
49/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
the witness to pay money to the said person. That, Hari Ramanani gave
the said witness a green color packet. That, the said witness was
informed by Mr. Kishor Vatnani that, when the money is handed over to
the said Pramod he should inform him that the money has been given by
Mr. Satish Dhanani. The witness, is said to have visited the designated
place and person wearing blue color shirt came near him. It is stated by
the witness that the said person identified himself as Pramod, and the
packet was handed over as directed by Mr. Kishore Vatnanai and he was
informed that Mr. Satish Dhanani had given the said packet. This
statement also indicates the link and nexus between the Petitioners in
Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024 and gangster Ravi Pujari.
rd
12) Perusal of the statement dated 3 September 2013 of
Respondent No.2, indicates that, due to the said disputes, Respondent
No.2 was following up with Mr. Rajan Sujanani. That, when Respondent
No.2 requested for transferring the company on his name, Mr. Rajan
Sujanani refused to do so and informed him that the said disputes can be
sorted out with the help of criminal elements. That, Mr. Rajan Sujanani
was the person through whom a conference call was made to the
Respondent No.2 and threats were given by Gangster Ravi Pujari at the
behest of Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani.
th
13) In the complaint dated 4 September 2013, Respondent No.2
has specifically stated that Mr. Hari A. Ramnani, Mr. Kishor D. Vatnani
50/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
and Mr. Rajan B. Sujanani with the aid of Mr. Ravi Pujari and his
associates and Bali and Madhu Nimya had threatened him with life on
numerous occasions and huge amount running into crores of rupees have
been extorted by them. The Respondent No.2 has further stated that, on
rd
3 September 2013, he again received call from number 40330476099 at
around 5.15 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. On his number 812789999. The person on
the other end identified himself to be Ravi Pujari and started to abuse
and threatened him. The person threatened him with life and also
threatened not to pursue his legal remedies against Mr. Hari A. Ramnani,
Mr. Kishort D. Vatnani, Mrs. Varsha Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Rajan B.
Sujanani. The person further threatened that, he has the details of all his
car numbers and home address and would eliminate him and his family.
The incident has put him in a state of immense fear of his life and his
near and dear one. He has further stated that, he had complained against
Mr. Hari A. Ramnani, Mr. Kishor D. Vatnani, Mrs. Varsha Rajan Sujanani,
Mr. Rajan B. Sujanani, Bali, Madhu Nimya, Mr. Ravi Pujari and other
unknown person for giving him threats to life, extorting money from him
and criminal intimidation.
14) We have noted that, Respondent No.2 in his complaint dated
th
4 September 2013 has specifically stated that, the statement of one
witness (Mr. Nitin Mehta) was recorded by Anti Extortion Cell, wherein
the said witness has stated that, Mr. Hari A. Ramanani, Mr. Kishor D.
51/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
Vatnani and Mr. Rajan B. Sujanani had taken help of underworld gangster
Ravi Pujari to extort the sum of Rs. 55 lacs from their previous partners
and the same was done in his presence.
nd
15) Perusal of the statement dated 22 November 2013,
specifically refers to the phone calls received by the Respondent No.2 on
rd th
3 September 2013 and 4 September 2013, in respect of the land at
Powai. A specific reference was made, to the dispute of Respondent No.2
which was on going with Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani and
that threats and directions were given to immediately settled the disputes
with Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani. Further, during the
th
alleged call made on 4 September 2013, a reference was made to the
rd
call of 3 September 2013 and enquires were made with Respondent
No.2 as to whether any discussion had taken place with Mr. Rajan
th
Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani in respect of the said settlement. On 4
September 2013, during the call, again the reference was made to
settling the said land dispute otherwise the complainant was threatened
nd
with dire consequences. The statement dated 22 November 2013 refers
to the transaction which Respondent No.2 had with Mr. Rajan Sujanani
and Mr. Kishore Vatanani. That, in the year 2008 the Complainant
through his acquaintance Mr. Nitin Mehta had decided to take over the
company known as Varsharaj Realtors. Mr. Hari Ramnani, Mr. Kishor
Vatnani, Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Ms. Varsha Sujanani were directors and
52/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
shareholders of Varsharaj Realtors. That, the said Varsharaj Realtors had
the development rights of certain properties situated at Powai and Bandra
which belongs to Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Ms. Varsha Sujanani. Despite of
being aware of the facts and the disputes the Respondent No. 2 had
decided to buy the property on a “as is where is basis”. After the
payments were made to Varsharaj Realtors, Respondent No.2 was to be
made the authorized person on behalf of Varsharaj Realtors. In the year
2011-2012, the said Mr. Hari Ramnani, Mr. Kishor Vatnani, Mr.
Madhusudhan, Mr. Parshuram Shinde conspired without the knowledge
of the Respondent No.2 to hand over the properties to Petitioner
Mangesh Sawant of Sailee Developers. That, the Respondent No.2’s
inquires with Mr. Rajan Sujanani, in respect of the said take over, did not
receive any reply/response. The Respondent No.2, therefore on realizing
the conduct of the accused, filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 1418 of 2012
which is pending. That, in this background Respondent No.2 received
threats from the Gangster Ravi Pujari at the behest of Mr. Rajan Sujanani
and Mr. Kishor Vatnani.
th
16) Perusal of statement dated 27 May 2014, of the other
witness (Mr. Nitin Mehta), would indicate that, in the year 2005 and
2006, there were some disputes between Mr. Rajan Sujanani and his
partners, which the witness got to know of when he had visited the
office. That, Mr. Kishor Vatnani gave the witness Rs.5,00,000/- and told
53/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
him to deliver the said money at Malad Dindoshi near Sai Baba Temple to
some unknown person. As per the instructions, the witness delivered the
said amount of Rs 5,00,000/- That, after delivering the amount he got
knowledge of the fact that, the said amount was given by Mr. Rajan
Sujanani to gangster Ravi Pujari due to the threatening calls. The
payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- was part of the payment of Rs. 50,00,000/-
That, the said Rs. 5,00,000/- given to accomplice by the name of Pramod
who is a acquittance of a Ravi Pujari. That, the said money was given by
Kishor Vatnani and thereafter Kishor Vatnani and Rajan Sujanani paid the
balance amount to Ravi Pujari through the Hawala Mode. The statement
of this witness (Nitin Mehta) was recorded before the invocation of
MCOCA. After the invocation of MCOCA, this witness has given statement
th
dated 6 August 2022. The said statement has referred to the threatening
calls and transactions. It is specifically stated that in December 2014 a
call was received from an unknown mobile number +910016308599.
That the person who had called identified himself as Ravi Pujari. That,
the said person directed that the money which is to be paid to Kishor
Vatnani and Rajan Sujanani should be paid failing which the said witness
would be killed. On the next date, the said witness again received a call
from mobile number+910015161859 and once again the person calling
identified himself as Ravi Pujari and enquired as to why the said witness
could not meet Kishor Vatnani and Rajan Sujanani and settled the
54/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
dispute. He was threatened with life, if the disputes were not settled.
st
17) We have noted that, in the statement dated 1 April 2022,
the Respondent No.2 has, specifically given details of the calls and the
threats, so also referred to documents which have been submitted to the
Investigating Authorities. There is a detailed list which runs into about 80
items, listed serially. We have also noted the fact that, Panchanama dated
th
30 November 2013 had been drawn up, wherein the conversation of the
threat call, has been reduced in the transcripts. As noted earlier, a perusal
of the transcripts of the said conversation, clearly makes out a prima facie
case and there is specific reference of the fact that gangster Ravi Pujari on
behalf of Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani, gave threats and
directions to the Respondent No.2 to settle all disputes with Mr. Rajan
Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani.
18) We have also perused the statement of the witness, recorded
th
on 4 April 2022 i.e. after the invocation of MCOCA and also the
th
statement dated 10 September 2014, recorded prior to the invocation of
th
the provision of MCOCA. In the statement dated 10 September 2014, of
witness (Madhusudhan) prior to the filing of the A-summary report, he
had specifically denied knowledge of the threats given by the gangster
Ravi Pujari. The witness has specifically stated that, he does not know the
reason, why the Respondent No.2 had involved Parshuram Shinde and
the said witness in the said complaint. That, he does not know gangster
55/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
Ravi Pujari and has had no relation with him. The witness, in his
th
statement dated 4 April 2022, has specifically stated that, due to the
fear of Parshuram Shinde and gangster Ravi Pujari, he did not disclose
th
the details in his statement dated 10 September 2014 which he had now
th
disclosed on 4 April 2022. The witness has, specifically stated that, after
year 2021 when Gangster Ravi Pujari was arrested and after the death of
Parshuram Shinde his fear reduced or nullified and therefore he gave his
supplementary statement explaining the transaction, the threat and the
delay for making the statement. We also find it necessary to refer to the
statement of the witness recorded under Section 164 of the Code of
th
Criminal Procedure. The said statement has been recorded on 27 June
2022. In the said statement, the witness has stated that, Satish Dhanani
sought help from him, in his business transactions for recovery of
possession of certain flats. This witness (Madhusudhan) introduced
Satish Dhanani to Parshuram Shinde. That a meeting was held with
builder Mr. Mangesh Sawant, Mr. Satish Dhanani, Mr. Hari Ramanani, Mr.
Kishor Vatnani and the said builder. That, after the said meeting Mr.
Satish Dhanani got possession of two flats and the possessions of two
flats were kept pending. That, Satish Dhanani had informed the witness
that, he was facing difficulties in the project at Powai. That, the said
project belongs to Mr. Mangesh Sawant. That, the said project was given
for development to Kishor Ramanani, Hari Ramanani and Varsharaj
56/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
Realtors. That, Parshuram Shinde had called Mr. Mangesh Sawant and
informed him that, he shall give him 56 crores but the property should be
returned. That, there were disputes in respect of the said land and
therefore Kishor Vatnani had stated that, he had good relation with
gangster Ravi Pujari. That, Parshuram Shinde has also stated that he had
good relations with Ravi Pujari and they decided to call Ravi Pujari. That,
Kishor Vatnani called Ravi Pujari in front of the said witness and spoke
with him for 2 to 3 minutes. After which the phone was handed over to
Parshuram Shinde. That, the witness informed Parshuram Shinde that,
the underworld should not be involved in the transaction, at that time
Mangesh Sawant, Kishor Vatnani, Satish Dhanani and Hariram Ramanani
were present. That, in the next meeting Kishor Vatanani handed over
bundle of money to Parshuram Shinde and stated that they had
succeeded and Ravi Pujari had tought the concerned person a lesson. In
our view, the explanation provided appears to be reasonable and
probable. The link or nexus of some of the accused is made out.
Considering, the said material we are of the opinion that, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it would not be advisable to exercise
the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure qua the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024.
th
19) We also note that the statement dated 4 April 2022 clearly
refers to the fact that, the witness knows Mr. Satish Dhanani, as he is
57/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
friend. That, in the year 2011 through Mr. Satish Dhanani, the witness
had meet Mr. Dhanani’s relative i.e. Mr. Hari Ramanani and Mr. Kishor
Vatnani. That, owners of Varsharaj Realtors had a dispute in respect of
property at Powai and Bandra with Mr. Mangesh Sawant. That, Mr.
Parshuram Shinde was trying to negotiate the settlement in the said
dispute. That, in January 2012, Mr. Parshuram Shinde (now deceased)
had called the said witness to his house when Mr. Mangesh Sawant was
present. That, Parshuram Shinde was trying to settle the dispute between
th
Mangesh Sawant and Hari Ramanani and Kishor Vatnani. That, on 12
January 2012, Memorandum of Understanding was executed between
the parties and it was decided that, Mangesh Sawant would pay Rs. 56
Crores and transfer the property in his names. That, Mangesh Sawant
had agreed to pay the said amount to Mr. Kishor Vatnani and his
associates. At that time, Mr. Kishor Vatnani had suggested that he will
pressurize Mr. Mangesh Sawant, through anti-social elements or use
underworld connections to pressurize him. That, Mr. Kishor Vatnani had
suggested that, the pressure could be exerted through gangster Ravi
Pujari. That, Mr. Kishor Vatnani said that he is in contact with Ravi Pujari
and infact made a phone call to Ravi Pujari from his number. Mr.
Parshuram Shinde also spoke to Ravi Pujari. That, the said witness, had
objected to seeking any interference from underworld elements. Mr.
Parshuram Shinde was insisting on using the said underworld contacts.
58/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
We have noticed that, the said witness has explained that, he gave his
th
statement dated 4 April 2022, wherein he has stated the aforesaid facts,
because gangster Ravi Pujari was arrested in the year 2021 and
Parshuram Shinde had expired by then. We note that, even this witness,
had not given the correct and complete facts in his first statement due to
the fear and terror of gangster Ravi Pujari and late Parshuram Shinde.
Further, the statement would also reveal that there was a dispute
between Mangesh Sawant, Hari Ramanani and Kishor Vatnani. In view
thereof, the suspicion of the Respondent against Mangesh Sawant prima
facie appears to be doubtful and unfounded.
20) We have noted that, a perusal of the complaints would
indicate that the allegations of extortion, since the beginning, are
primarily against the Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani i.e. the
Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024. It is the specific allegation of
Respondent No.2 that, gangster Ravi Pujari used a conference facility
from or on the phone/number of Mr. Rajan Sujanani and gave the
threatening calls. That, it was at the behest of Mr. Rajan Sujanani, Mr.
Kishor Vatnani and Mr. Hari Ramanani that, the calls were made. That,
the Respondent No. 2 has given the transcription of the calls wherein the
threats, and extortion is clearly made out by gangster Ravi Pujari and at
the behest and instance of Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani.
nd
That, C.D. containing the conversation was given as early as 22
59/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
th
November 2013 and the Panchanama thereof was made on 30
November 2013. Perusal of the transcripts would indicate that, the
threats given by gangster Ravi Pujari were directly pertaining and related
to the Powai property and directions were given to follow the instructions
of Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani and to do acts to settle the
matter. This fact also clearly makes out the case. We have noted that, the
nd
statement dated 22 November 2013, make a reference to Mangesh
Sawant on the basis of suspicion only.
21) It be noted that, it is the membership of organized crime
syndicate or the link to the syndicate which makes a person liable under
the MCOCA. The charge under the MCOCA ropes in a person who as a
member of the organized crime syndicate commits organized crime i.e. in
this case acts of extortion by giving threats, etc. to gain economic
advantage as a member of the crime syndicate singly or jointly. Charge is
in respect of unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate. What is
important is the nexus or the link of the person with the syndicate. The
link with the organized crime syndicate' is the crucial and the crux of the
term ‘continuing unlawful activity’. If this link is not established, that
person cannot be roped in. If the link is established, then a crime
committed by him, will be a part of the continuing unlawful activity of
the organized crime syndicate.
22) We have noted that, the transcripts of the conversation dated
60/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
rd th
3 and 4 September was handed over to the Investigating Authorities.
rd
Perusal of the transcripts of conversation dated 3 September 2013,
would clearly indicate the threats and more importantly the fact that the
same were given at the behest of Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Kishor Vatnani.
Perusal of the ‘A-summary report’, would indicate that, there is a specific
finding in the ‘A-summary report’ that, the threatening calls were received
from gangster Ravi Pujari but, according to the report, the Investigating
Authorities could not get any decisive evidence of proof to link the said
calls with the accused. On a protest petition being filed, further
investigation was ordered and statements were recorded, which in our
opinion clearly make out a case against Mr. Kishore Vatnani and Mr.
Rajan Sujanani. We have noted that in the transcripts there is a specific
reference to Kishore Vatnani and Rajan Sujanani. Even the transcripts of
th rd
4 September 2013 also refer to the call and conversation of 3
September 2013.
23) We have noted the argument of the Petitioners, that there is
a delay of nine years in invoking the provisions of the Maharashtra
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. At the first blush, the argument
appears to be attractive and creates an illusion of making out a very
compelling case for the Petitioners. However, on a careful examination of
the dates when the alleged calls are made, the first complaint filed,
coupled with the explanation offered by the witnesses for the delay, we
61/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
are of the prima facie opinion that the delay, if any, has been explained in
a reasonable and plausible manner and atleast to such an extent that, it
would prevent this court from exercising powers under section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, solely on the ground of delay. We have noted
that, the cause of action arose when the alleged extortion call was made
rd
on 3 September 2013. The Complaint was immediately filed and there
was a constant follow up by the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2,
th
immediately and without any delay filed complaints dated 4 September
th rd
2013, 6 September 2013 and 23 September 2013, with the police
nd
authorities including the Anti-Extortion Cell, Mumbai. On 22 November
2013, FIR No. 403 of 2013 was registered at Juhu Police Station under
Section 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was later transferred
to the Anti-Extortion Cell as FIR No. 115 of 2013. Section 120B of the
th
Indian Penal Code was added. The record indicates that on 30
November 2013, a transcript panchnama of the alleged conversation
between Respondent No. 2 and Ravi Pujari was prepared. In the
transcripts, the names of Mr. Kishor Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani are
th
specifically mentioned. On 16 November 2015, in FIR 115/2013, an ‘A-
rd
Summary Report’ was filed. On 23 August 2017, Respondent No. 2 filed
st
a Protest Petition challenging the A-Summary report. On 21 February
rd
2020, Gangster Ravi Pujari was extradited to India from Sengal. On 23
December 2021, the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
62/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
th
37 Esplanade Court, allowed the Protest Petition and ordered further
investigation. Between April and August 2022, statements of several
witnesses were recorded, including under section 161 and 164 of the
th
Criminal Procedure Code, alleging organized crime. On 12 September
2022, prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA, 1999 was
st
granted by Joint Commissioner of Police. On 21 February 2023, sanction
under Section 23(2) of MCOCA was accorded by Special Commissioner of
th
Police. On 6 March 2023, a charge-sheet was filed before the Learned
th
Special Judge 55 Court, Mumbai. Cognizance of the criminal
th
proceedings was taken on 9 March 2023. In our opinion considering the
aforesaid chronology of dates and events, the Respondent No. 2, cannot
be blamed or faulted of the delay, if any. The Respondent No.2 has acted
swiftly, with diligence and as a prudent and responsible person. We are of
the opinion that, for the acts of negligence or commission or omission of
the investigating authorities, Respondent No. 2 cannot be blamed and the
criminal prosecution cannot be made to suffer by a rejection. Further, it
may be noted that, it will always be open for the Petitioners to raise the
ground of delay at the trial, if so advised. In serious and grievous offences
like the present one the ground of delay cannot come to the rescue of the
Petitioners. Otherwise, a prima facie case and prosecution therein cannot
be interfered with the ground of delay or negligence on the part of the
Investigating Authorities.
63/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
24) We find that, the explanation for the delay, offered by the
witnesses is that, due to the terror and fright, of gangster Ravi Pujari and
Parshuram Shinde, the witnesses had not mentioned any details in the
statements recorded, before the ‘A Summary’ was filed. The witnesses
have specifically stated that, after the arrest of gangster Ravi Pujari and
after the death of Parshuram Shinde, the said witness had the courage to
give the statement. We are of the opinion that, the explanation for delay
is reasonable, plausible and reflects the conduct of a common and
ordinary person.
25) Perusal of the FIR filed by the Respondent No.2 would
rd
indicate that, the complaint was immediately filed on 3 September
2013. As stated earlier the complaint proceeds on the basis that,
Respondent No.2 had a suspicion that gangster Ravi Pujari threatened
him on behalf of Mr. Rajan Sujanani, Mr. Kishor Vatnani and others. That,
gangster Ravi Pujari, vide conference call made using the phone of Mr.
Rajan Sujanani connected and threatened Respondent No.2. The specific
complaint is that, the phone call was made by using the phone of Mr.
Rajan Sujanani. That, the caller i.e gangster Ravi Pujari specifically
referred to the names of Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani and
threatened Respondent No.2 to settle the ongoing disputes with Mr.
Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani.
26) As regards the allegation of malafides and/or malicious
64/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
prosecution we find no circumstances or material on record which would
indicate the same or substantiating the said arguments/contentions. The
ground of malafides is based primarily on the ground of delay in invoking
the provision of MCOCA. According to us, on considering the initial
complaint, the witness statements as recorded and the transcripts, we
find that there is prima facie material on record to make out at least a
prima facie case against Mr. Rajan Sujanani, Mr. Kishor Vatanani, Hari
Ramnani, Ravi Pujari and his associates, Bali and Madhu Nimya. From
the record, we have not found any material in support of the allegation of
malafides or malicious prosecution. We note that, the perception of
malafides or malicious prosecution, in the minds of the Petitioners is
seemingly based on the ground of delay and the fact that an “A summary
report” was filed. In our view, both the said aspects have been effectively
and comprehensively dealt with by the prosecuting agencies. We find
that, there is no evidence or material, much less any cogent material
which is pointed out or brought before the court so as to establish the
said malafide. We are of the opinion that mere delay, cannot vitiate a
criminal proceeding least to say a proceeding under MCOCA. In our
opinion, the malafides, if any, are required to be apparent on the face of
the record, which in the present case are not available.
27) A criminal proceedings may be quashed, if it is found that
the same are initiated with a malafide intent, particularly with ulterior
65/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
motives, or a personal vendetta against the accused. In this regard the
principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (Supra) and in the case of Mohammad
Wajid V/s State of U.P., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 would be a
guiding force which stipulates that proceedings manifestly attended with
malafide may be quashed. We are of the opinion that, if the allegations in
the FIR disclose a prima facie offence against the accused, mere claims of
malafide are insufficient to quash the proceedings. This Court, in its
inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
ought not to interfere based solely on allegations of malafide if the
complaint, when accepted on face value, constitutes an offence. When
the allegations of malafides are raised, it is the duty of the Court to take a
guarded approach, analyze the material with caution and due care.
28) We are of the opinion that, an otherwise maintainable and
sustainable criminal prosecution, cannot be rejected or thrown out only
on the grounds of malafides. We would be reminded and bound to follow
the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheonandan
Paswan v. State of Bihar (supra) that “It is a well established proposition
of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon
adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or
political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant.”
29) The allegations of mala fides against the Complainant or the
66/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
investigating authority would be of no consequence and cannot by
themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. What is to be seen
is whether, a prima facie case or offence is made out or not. One must
keep in mind that the interference by the Court under Section 482 CrPC
is called for to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice.
30) We are mindful of the fact that, while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court cannot act as if it is a trial court or
conduct what is called a “mini trial”. The Court has to only see if a prima
facie case is made out or not. The exercise of undertaking a detailed
appreciation of evidence is not envisaged nor appreciated under section
482 of the CrPC. While, exercising the inherent powers under section 482
of the CrPC, the Court has apply its judicial discretion, judiciously, is
required to take due care and caution, be circumspect in exercising
discretion and at the same time all material and relevant facts and
circumstances of the matter are required to be considered.
31) The exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code is to
prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. The powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are
wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its
exercise. The Court must not exercise the inherent power to stifle a
legitimate prosecution and at the same time malicious, vexatious,
67/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
frivolous or patently unsustainable and untenable prosecutions should
not be allowed to continue.
32) We are aware that, the exercise of the inherent powers to
quash the proceedings ought to invoke and called in aid only in cases
where the complaint does not disclose any prima facie offence or is
frivolous, vexatious or oppressive or when the allegations set out in the
complaint even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety do not
constitute the offence. The complaint and allegations contained therein
are to be read as a whole and if it appears that the ingredients of the
offence or offences are not disclosed or that there is material to show that
the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event the Court
would be justified in interfering and quashing the proceedings.
33) In our opinion the concept of malafides in relation to the
exercise of statutory powers comprises dishonesty (or fraud) and malice.
A power is exercised in a malafide manner if its repository intends to
achieve an object other than that for which he believes the power to have
been conferred. The intention may be to possibly promote a personal or
private interests of self or at the behest of some other person. A power is
exercised maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity
towards those who are directly affected by its exercise. Mala fides in the
present case possibly mean oblique or improper motive or ulterior
purpose. An action done in course of delay, but negligently or not
68/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
otherwise may not be an act of malafides. A plea of mala fide involves
two parts/issues, namely (i) whether there is a personal bias or an
oblique motive, and (ii) whether the administrative action is contrary to
the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of
administrative power. An defective investigation cannot be formed as a
malafide action. The court has to be circumspect in evaluating the
evidence and may have to adopt an active and analytical role to ensure
that truth is found by having recourse to Section 311 or at a later stage
also resorting to Section 391 instead of throwing hands in the air in
despair. It would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on
account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the
hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly
defective. ( See Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. ,(1995) 5 SCC 518 ).
34) In Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1999) 2 SCC 126] it was
held that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating
agency designedly or because of negligence, the prosecution evidence is
required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the
said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials
should not stand in the way of courts getting at the truth by having
recourse to Sections 311, 391 of the Code and Section 165 of the
Evidence Act at the appropriate and relevant stages and evaluating the
entire evidence; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated
69/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
with a premium to the offenders and justice would not only be denied to
the complainant party but also made an ultimate casualty.
35) As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar
[(1998) 4 SCC 517] if primacy is given to such designed or negligent
investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or
omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not
only in the law-enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice
in the hands of courts. The view was again reiterated in Amar Singh v.
Balwinder Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 518] .
36) We are of the view that, delay in registration of the FIR for
offences punishable with an imprisonment of more than three years
cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation. In our view,
delay would assume some relevance, and may be in some cases
importance, only when it is shown that the original informant has failed
to give a reasonable or plausible explanation for the delay. Further, more
importantly, whether the explanation is reasonable or plausible or not, is
a question and aspect which is to be decided by the Trial Court, at the
trial after recording the evidence in respect thereof. In the present case,
the facts, circumstances and the dates and events coupled with the
explanation given by witnesses, clearly explain on a prima facie basis the
delay. The Accused will, also be at liberty to raise the said ground of
delay at and during the trial, which the trial Court shall be duty bound to
70/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
decide without being in any manner influenced by the observations in
made herein.
th
37) Perusal of the Order dated 12 September 2022 granting
prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act 1999 would indicate that, the case paper of D.C.B.,
C.I.D. C.R. No. 115 of 2003 (Juhu Police Station, C.R. No. 403 of 2013)
under Section 387, 120-B and 34 of the IPC has been referred to in the
said Order. That, based on the investigating papers such as the FIR,
panchanama, statement of witnesses, transcripts and evidence, a case is
clearly made out. As per the record, the allegation of Respondent No.2 in
the complaint is that, the wanted accused persons in the case i.e. Accused
No. 2 (Kishor D. Vatnani), Accused No. 3 (Rajan Sujanani), Accused No. 4
(Mangesh Sawant), and deceased accused Hari Ramnani and Parshuram
Shinde and others have knowingly played a role in hatching a conspiracy
and utilizing the services of organized crime syndicate of wanted
accused No. 1 Ravi Pujari, thereby becoming active members of
organized crime syndicate headed by wanted accused No. 1, Ravi Pujari.
The object was to deprive the Respondent No.2 of his rightful ownership
of Varsharaj Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The Order specifically refers to the meeting
held in May 2013, at the house of deceased Parshuram Shinde, where in
the presence of witness, (Madhusudhan Balkrishna) the conspiracy was
hatched and it was decided to use the service of organized crime
71/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
syndicate headed by Ravi Pujari. The Order specifically records that,
gangster Ravi Pujari threatened the Respondent No.2 with dire
consequences and directed/threatened him to settle the dispute with
Accused No. 2 Mr. Kishor D. Vatnani and Accused No. 3 Mr. Rajan B.
Sujanani. Considering the said facts, in our opinion, it is clear that, the
instant crime had been registered with the object to gain pecuniary
benefit for the members of the organized crime syndicate by intimidation.
th
The Prior Approval dated 12 September 2022 is based on material and
available evidence. In our view, the allegation of Respondent No.2 has
consistently being made against Mr. Kishore Vatnani, Mr. Rajan Sujanani,
Hari Ramanani, Bali, Madhu Nimya, Ravi Pujari and his associates. We
are of the prima facie view that, the prosecution has material and
evidence on record, which demonstrates the involvement of Mr. Kishore
Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani, Hari Ramanani, Bali, Madhu Nimya,
Ravi Pujari and his associates. We are of the view, that on a prima facie
basis, the case of extortion is clearly made out against the said aforenoted
persons. Mr. Kishore Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani, clearly have a
motive against the Respondent No.2 as there was dispute in respect of the
development agreements, properties Varshraj Realtors and there were
protective Orders passed in favour of Respondent No.2. In our view, the
protective orders passed in favour of Respondent No.2, provide a motive
and reason for Mr. Kishore Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani, to indulge in
72/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
such criminal activities. Prima facie, the Sanction, in our view indicates
proper application of mind.
th
38) Perusal of the Prior Approval dated 12 September 2022
passed under Section 23(1) (a) of MCOCA would further indicate that,
wanted accused No. 1 Ravi Pujari is the leader of organized crime
syndicate which indulge in continuous unlawful activity and that during
the proceedings period of 10 years, more than one chargesheet pertaining
to cognizable offences having punishment of imprisonment of 3 years or
more have been filed against wanted accused gangster Ravi Pujari. That,
cognizance of the same has been taken by the concerned Competent
Court. That, the present crime was committed to terrorize Respondent
No.2 and other businessman in the society for gaining pecuniary benefits
for continuing the nefarious and illegal activities of the organized crime
syndicate. In our view the prior approval and sanction as required under
section 23 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999 has
been correctly granted against Mr. Kishore Vatnani, Mr. Rajan Sujanani,
Hari Ramnani, Bali, Madhu Nimya, Ravi Pujari and his associates and the
same is based on material and evidence collected during the
investigation. As regards the sanction being granted against accused
Mangesh Sawant. We are of the considered opinion that the same is
misplaced and found on unsustainable suspicion. The main dispute, issue
and grievance was between Respondent No.2 on one hand and Mr.
73/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
Kishore Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani on the other. We have noted that,
since the time the threat calls were made the suspicion and allegations
are mainly against Mr. Kishor Vatanani, Mr. Rajan Sujanani, Hari
Ramanani, Bali, Madhu Nimya, Ravi Pujari and his associates. Perusal of
the transcript, does not seem to indicate or implicate the other accused
with the extortion calls. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the
extortion calls to have been made at all times by gangster Ravi Pujari at
the behest of Mr. Kishore Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani.
nd
39) Perusal of the FIR bearing No. 403 of 2013 dated 22
November 2013, and the statements recorded, after rejecting the ‘A
Summary report’, clearly make out a prima facie case, so also indicate
that the provisions of MCOCA have been correctly invoked. We have
th
noted, the supplementary statement dated 17 September 2014 gives the
rd th
details of the calls received from 3 September 2014 to 9 September
2014. In the said details, there is also mentioned which of the phone calls
were not received and were missed calls and which of the phone calls the
conversation took place. This, according to us is a prima facie indicates
the genuineness of the complaint.
40) We are of the opinion that, the Authority at the time of
issuing the prior approval or sanction, ought to have available with it on
record credible information and material to link the accused to the crime
or the syndicate and further that the authority is satisfied with the said
74/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
information and material. W e are therefore of the considered opinion
that, the question of validity of prior approval and sanction cannot be
decided unless the investigating authority is given an opportunity to lead
evidence and demonstrate that the Orders are properly passed. T he
validity of prior approval and sanction, both can be considered and
decided during the trial by the Trial Court. At the trial, the Petitioners will
get an effective opportunity to challenge the approval and sanction order,
as the sanctioning authority would be examined. The Petitioners will
have an opportunity to question the same including through cross
examination of the authority.
41) We note here that, our observations as regards the validity of
approval and sanction, are made on a prima facie consideration of the
Orders and material as is available. We make it clear that, the trial Court
shall not be influenced by the said observations and will decide the issue
independently, without in any manner being influenced by the
observations made herein.
42) Considering the law as cited hereinabove, it is clear that in
order to invoke the provision of MCOCA, the link of the accused with the
syndicate or the crime has to be present and prima facie available. An
accused, may not be directly involved nor an overt act ascribed to him,
but as long as the “link” or “nexus” is shown with the “organised crime
syndicate” or with the offence in an “organised crime” the provision of
75/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
MCOCA would be attracted and invocation justified. In the present case,
as observed earlier, even the name of Petitioner Mangesh Sawant, is not
mentioned in the complaint or the statements nor is any motive or intent
attributed to him. Infact, some statements, would indicate that, Mangesh
Sawant himself had disputes with Mr. Kishore Vatnani and Mr. Rajan
Sujanani and that, Mangesh Sawant was threatened. Considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the
name of Mangesh Sawant is taken on mere suspicion. The availability, on
record, of credible information and material to link the accused to the
crime or the syndicate, is clearly absent. In view thereof, the question of
the authority, being satisfied with the said information and material as
regards the accused does not arise. It is well settled law that, suspicion,
however strong cannot take the place of proof.
43) Perusal of the record would indicate that, there is prima facie
information and material available on record to show the involvement of
Mr. Kishore Vatnani, Mr. Rajan Sujanani, Mr. Hari Ramnani, Ravi Pujari
and his associates and Bali and Madhu Nimya. We find that, there is no
material on record to rope in or implicate Mangesh Sawant or to invoke
the provisions of MCOCA against Mangesh Sawant. As mentioned earlier,
his name is not taken by the Respondent No. 2 in relation to the
threat/extortion calls nor is it mentioned or appears in the transcripts.
44) Though it may be advisable that an approval or sanction,
76/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
speaks for itself, i.e. disclose consideration of the materials placed before
it and the exercise of application of mind. We are of the opinion that, a
mere failure to reproduce or to refer to some or all the material in detail,
in the said order, by itself may not be a ground to doubt the application
of mind or term the order as invalid, unless it is demonstrated that the
crux of contents or material or information is not referred or considered
by the Authority. The prosecution, at the trial may establish by leading
evidence that all of such the materials which was necessary for the grant
of approval or sanction was placed before the authority for consideration,
and that, the same was considered as a whole and in totality, the process
of application of mind, by the authority, was to the whole and all of such
material, before the grant of approval and or sanction.
45) We are of the opinion that, if an approval or sanction Order,
does not ex-facie reveal the consideration of all the material, the same
may be established by leading evidence. The decision on the defective
invalidity of the approval or sanction order, if any, will have to be at the
conclusion of the trial.
46) Perusal of the prior approval and sanction clearly
demonstrates that credible information and material was placed before
the Authority and the Authority has applied its mind as far as the
Petitioners in Writ Petition No 622 of 2024 are considered.
47) Perusal of the record would indicate that, there are certain
77/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
pending civil proceedings and arbitrations in respect of the lands and
based on development agreements/contracts. We have noted that, the
present criminal proceedings pertain to a criminal conspiracy hatched
with a common intention to commit the act of extortion so as to ensure
that the disputes are settled as per the say and wish of Mr. Kishore
Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani. We have noted that, the pending civil
litigations are filed much before the alleged threat calls which are made
rd
only on and after 3 September 2013. As far as the present criminal
proceedings are concerned, the cause of action for FIR No. 115 of 2023
(earlier FIR No 403 of 2013) has arisen in the year 2013, which is an
independent cause of action and criminal offence. Though, in a sense
related or interconnected to the subject matter of the civil litigation, the
present criminal act and offence complained of, is based on, the alleged
rd
extortion/threat calls made on and from 3 September 2013 which is
distinct and different cause of action. The Complainant has consistently
alleged that, accused No. 1 Ravi Pujari, in conspiracy with and at the say
and behest of Mr. Kishore Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani threatened the
rd
Respondent No.2 and committed an offence of extortion firstly on 3
September 2023 and thereafter repeatedly for and on behalf of Mr.
Kishore Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani. We have noted that, the case of
the Respondent No. 2, since day one, has consistently being that the
extortion calls were made by gangster Ravi Pujari and his organized
78/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
crime syndicate at the directions of and at the behest of Mr. Kishore
Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani.
48) Considering the nature of the allegations, the facts and
circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that, it
cannot be said or even inferred that, only because there are protective
orders passed in civil proceedings or that the civil proceedings are
pending, that a criminal proceeding cannot be initiated or that an offence
of extortion under section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, as in the present
case cannot be made out or that the case is false and filed with malafide
intention. We are reminded of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar, (Supra) wherein it is
observed that, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that civil
liability and criminal liability may arise from the same set of facts and
that the pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings does not bar
prosecution where the ingredients of a criminal offence are disclosed.
49) We are of the considered view that, in the present case only
because the interest of the Respondent No.2 is protected or civil litigation
is pending, it cannot be inferred or presumed that, a criminal offence
cannot be committed or made out. We are of the view that, the same set
of facts, in a given situation, can give rise to both a civil proceeding and
an independent criminal prosecution. In our view, what is required to be
seen is the criminal act, the intent, motive and the criminality involved in
79/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
the acts and conduct and not only the fact that a prior civil litigation is
filed and pending. The facts of each case have to be considered, analyzed
and independently examined to ascertain if the ingredients of the
offences which are alleged, are available and an offence/case is made out
on a prima facie basis. In the present case, considering the FIR, the
statements as recorded and the transcripts, in our opinion a prima facie
case is clearly made out against Mr. Kishore Vatnani, Mr. Rajan Sujanani,
Bali, Hari Ramnani, Madhu Nimya, Ravi Pujari and his associates. We say
rd
this, because from the first complaint dated 3 September 2013, the
allegation at all times has been that the call by gangster Ravi Pujari was
made in conspiracy with and at the behest of Mr. Kishore Vatnani and Mr.
Rajan Sujanani. Our said prima facie observation is further supported and
corroborated by the transcripts, wherein there is a specific reference to
the names of Mr. Kishore Vatnani and Mr. Rajan Sujanani.
50) As regards the contention that the ‘A-summary report’ has
not been considered, it be noted that pursuant to a protest petition being
filed, further investigation was ordered, after which the provisions of
MCOCA have been invoked. We have noted that, the protest petition filed
by the Respondent No.2 was allowed and further investigation was
directed. We have also noted that, it is not in dispute that the order
allowing further investigation has now take a finality. We are of the
opinion that once, an A summary report is rejected and fresh further
80/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
investigations is carried out, the relevance of the ‘A summary report’ may
not be relevant or would be relevant to a certain extent. One must keep
in mind that, the ‘A Summary report’ has been set aside considering the
facts that investigation was not properly appreciated and/or considered.
In any event, once the ‘A summary report’ is set aside and fresh further
investigation is allowed, the ‘A summary report’ may lose relevance. Even
otherwise, the order of prior sanction refers to the FIR in question. The
witnesses have now given statements, which prima facie make out a case
against Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Kishor Vatnani. In any event, the said
statements can only be tested at the time of the trial and not in a petition
filed for quashing under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
51) As regards the arguments that the offence of extortion is not
made out as no property is delivered, we are of the opinion that the said
argument is made only to be rejected. We say this for the following
reasons. The offence of extortion is defined under section 383 of the IPC
to mean an intentional act, by which a person put in fear of any injury to
that person or any other person is dishonestly induced to deliver to any
person any property or valuable security or anything that is signed or
sealed which may be converted to valuable security. Section 386 deals
with Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.
Section 387 of the IPC, which has been invoked in the present case, deals
the offence of putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in
81/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
order to commit extortion. For the offence of extortion to be made out,
section 383 requires that, the following ingredients must be present:-
(i) Intentionally putting any person in fear of injury to that
person or any other person;
(ii) Inducing of the person so put in fear dishonestly;
(iii) Delivery to any person any property or valuable security by the
person put in fear and subjected to dishonest inducement.
52) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay alias
Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2007) 14 SCC
768 has observed that, if any of these ingredients is absent, the offence
of extortion would not be complete.
53) In the present case, we are concerned with Section 387 of
IPC, which requires the following essential ingredients, namely:
(a) Accused must have put a person in fear of death or grievous
hurt;
(b) Such an act must have been done in order to commit extortion;
One needs to consider the meaning which may be assigned to the
expression 'in order to' which is described and defined in the
following ways i.e "in order to"; “for the purpose of”; "in order to"
or “with the purpose of doing” or 'in order to commit extortion'
clearly reveals that it is in the process of committing the offence of
extortion.
What is envisaged under section 386 is an act in itself, and whereas
under section 387 what is envisaged is the process or a stage before
committing an offence of extortion. By section 387 of the IPC, the
Legislature, has thought is appropriate and necessary to criminalize
and make an offence even the process of extortion by making it a
82/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
separate, distinct and independent offence. It can thus safely be
concluded that for the invocation of section 387 of the IPC or to
prosecute a person under Section 387 IPC, the delivery of property
is not at all necessary.
54) As regards the contention of the Petitioners that, the
certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, was belatedly
submitted in the year 2022, we are of the considered view that such an
argument cannot be accepted at this stage. It is well settled by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. T. Naseer @
Nasir @ Thandiyantavida arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6548 of 2022, that
non-production of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act
(Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) is a curable defect.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that, the
certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act can be produced at any
stage, so long as the trial has not concluded. It has further been observed
that the requisite certificate may be directed to be produced before the
Court at any stage so as to enable the electronic record to be admitted
and relied upon in evidence. The relevant paragraphs of the judgement
read as under :-
“10. In State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, 2019(7) SCC 515, this
Court after referring to the earlier judgment in Anwar’a case
(supra) held that the non-production of the Certificate under
Section 65B of the Act is a curable defect. Relevant paragraph ‘16’
thereof is extracted below:
“16. The same view has been reiterated by a twoJudge Bench of
this Court in Union of India v. Ravindra V. Desai, (2018) 16 SCC
83/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
273. The Court emphasised that non-production of a certificate
under Section 65-B on an earlier occasion is a curable defect.
The Court 10 relied upon the earlier decision in Sonu v. State of
Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570 in which it was held:
‘32. … The crucial test, as affirmed by this Court, is whether
the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the
document. Applying this test to the present case, if an
objection was taken to the CDRs being marked without a
certificate, the court could have given the prosecution an
opportunity to rectify the deficiency.’
(Emphasis added)
11. Coming to the issue as to the stage of production of the
certificate under Section 65-B of the Act is concerned, this Court in
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar’s case (supra) held that the certificate
under 65-B of the Act can be produced at any stage if the trial is
not over. Relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“56. Therefore, in terms of general procedure, the prosecution
is obligated to supply all documents upon which reliance may
be placed to an accused before commencement of the trial.
Thus, the exercise of power by the courts in criminal trials in
permitting evidence to be filed at a later stage should not result
in serious or irreversible prejudice to the accused. A balancing
exercise in respect of the rights of parties has to be carried out
by the court, in examining any application by 11 the
prosecution under Sections 91 or 311 CrPC or Section 165 of
the Evidence Act. Depending on the facts of each case, and the
court exercising discretion after seeing that the accused is not
prejudiced by want of a fair trial, the court may in appropriate
cases allow the prosecution to produce such certificate at a
later point in time. If it is the accused who desires to produce
the requisite certificate as part of his defence, this again will
depend upon the justice of the case — discretion to be
exercised by the court in accordance with law.
59. Subject to the caveat laid down in paras 52 and 56 above,
the law laid down by these two High Courts has our
concurrence. So long as the hearing in a trial is not yet over, the
requisite certificate can be directed to be produced by the
84/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
learned Judge at any stage, so that information contained in
electronic record form can then be admitted and relied upon in
evidence.”
(Emphasis added)
12. The courts below had gone on a wrong premise to opine that
there was delay of six years in producing the certificate whereas
there was none. The matter was still pending when the application
to 12 resummon M. Krishna (PW-189) and produce the certificate
under Section 65-B of the Act was filed under Section 311 of the
Cr.P.C.
…..
15. Fair trial in a criminal case does not mean that it should be
fair to one of the parties. Rather, the object is that no guilty should
go scot-free and no innocent should be punished. A certificate
under Section 65-B of the Act, which is sought to be produced by
the prosecution is not an evidence which has been created now. It
is meeting the requirement of law to prove a report on record. By
permitting the prosecution to produce the certificate under Section
65B of the Act at this stage will not result in any irreversible
prejudice to the accused. The accused will have full opportunity to
rebut the evidence led by the prosecution. This is the purpose for
which Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is there. The object of the Code is
to arrive at truth. However, 14 the power under Section 311 of the
Cr.P.C. can be exercised to subserve the cause of justice and public
interest. In the case in hand, this exercise of power is required to
uphold the truth, as no prejudice as such is going to be caused to
the accused.”
Considering the aforenoted observations by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court there can be no fault found with the fact that the
certificate under section 65-B of the Evidence Act was submitted in the
year 2022.
55) We are of the view that, from a perusal of the statements of
85/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
the various witnesses, the complaint and transcripts it can be safely
inferred on a prima facie basis that the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.
622 of 2024 along with other accused, indulged in the unlawful activities
with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue
economic or other advantage and committed an act of extortion. We
have also noted the argument of the learned APP, that one of the co-
accused namely Mr. Satish Dhanani had filed a Writ Petition bearing
No.1948/2023 seeking quashing of FIR. However, the said Writ Petition
was withdrawn, as the Petitioner chose to avail the alternate remedy
which was available to the said Petitioner.
56) Further, in the present case, we are informed that, the
chargesheet is filed and cognizance of offence is taken by the Special
Court. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that the
arguments of the Petitioners regarding the point if delay in invoking the
provisions of MCOCA, the challenge to the prior sanction and the point if
the transcripts be considered without a 65B certificates as required under
the law are all questions which can be effectively raised, considered and
argued at and during the trial of the case.
57) In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion
that, the facts of the present case and the material on record do not
warrant the exercise of the powers for quashing of a criminal proceedings
under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now 528 of the
86/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
BNSS) as against the Petitioners Mr. Rajan Sujanani and Mr. Kishor
Vatnani in Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024.
58) As regards the Petitioner Mr. Mangesh Sawant in Writ
Petition No 2317 of 2023, we are of the opinion that, the name of said
Petitioner does not find place in the threat calls and consequently the
transcripts. Even on a perusal of the complaints, it is clear that the case of
extortion was since the inception alleged and made out only against the
Mr. Rajan Sujanani, Mr. Kishor Vatnani, Hari Ramnani, Ravi Pujari and
his associates, Bali and Madhu Nimya. There is no reference to Petitioner
in Writ Petition No. 2317 of 2023. A perusal of the complaints, witness
statements, transcripts make it abundantly clear that, a prima facie case
and offences have been made out against Mr. Rajan Sujanani, Mr. Kishor
Vatnani, Hari Ramnani, Ravi Pujari and his associates, Bali and Madhu
Nimya. As noted herein before the names of Mr. Rajan Sujanani, Mr.
Kishor Vatnani, Varsha Sujanani and Hari Ramnani have been mentioned
in the first statement/complaint. As such, there is a direct allegation and
the offences as against them are clearly made out. In such facts and
circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, cannot be invoked
and is not warranted.
59) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
following Order is passed :-
(i) Writ Petition No 622 of 2024 is dismissed.
87/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
(ii) Writ Petition No 2317 of 2023 is allowed. The proceedings
i.e. chargesheet filed in C.R. No. 115 of 2013, culminated into
MCOCA Special Case No. 298 of 2023 pending before the learned
Special Judge, along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, is quashed and set aside as against Mr. Mangesh Sawant
i.e the Petitioner herein.
th
(iii) The prior approval dated 12 September 2022 granted under
st
Section 23(1) of the MCOCA and the sanction dated 21 February
2023 granted under Section 23(2) of the MCOCA as against Mr.
Mangesh Sawant, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2317 of 2023 in
nd
connection with FIR No. 403 of 2013 dated 22 November 2013
registered with Juhu Police Station are quashed and set aside.
(iv) The Writ Petitions are disposed off in the afore-stated terms.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
60) At this stage, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024 prayed that the interim relief
granted in favour of the Petitioners be continued for a period of four
weeks from today to enable the Petitioners to test the correctness of this
Judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
88/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::

Sagar Magar MCOCA.doc
61) Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 opposed the said
prayer.
62) In view of the facts mentioned in the Petition and the
findings recorded in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment, we are
not inclined to grant the said request. Accordingly, the prayer for
continuation of the interim relief is rejected.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
89/89
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2026 12:04:14 :::