Akshay Ravindra Bornare And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:21518
wp-1156-2026.odt

(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1156 OF 2026
1. Shri Akshay Ravindra Bornare
Age: 28 years, Occupation: Advocate
Resident of: 456, Karjod,
Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon
2. Shri Prashant Nana Baviskar
Age: 37 years, Occupation: Advocate
Resident of: At village Paldhi,
Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon
3. Shri Madhukar Ratan Sapkale
Age: 52 years, Occupation: Advocate
Resident of: At Post Avhane,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ..Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Jalgaon, District Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon
3. The Executive Engineer,
[M.I.W.], Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon.
4. Shri Shivcharan Manik Thakare
Age: years, Occupation: Agriculture
Resident of : At Pimpalgaon Bk.,
Taluka Pachora,
District Jalgaon. ..Respondents
…
Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Ashwini
Deshmukh i/b Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for Respondent/State.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 16, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : MAY 06, 2026

wp-1156-2026.odt

(2)
JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of parties.
2. The petitioners impugn judgment and order dated
19.01.2026 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in L.A.R.
No.5 of 2025 to the extent of observations, findings and directions
incorporated in Clause Nos.3 and 4 of operative part, whereby the
Court directed District Collector, Jalgaon to lodge F.I.R./police report
against all claimants in L.A.R. Nos.74 of 2017 to 81 of 2017 and
L.A.R. Nos.5 of 2025 to 13 of 2025, so also directed Assistant
Superintendent of Court to file separate complaints with Judicial
Magistrate against claimants and advocates in respective claim
petitions for offences committed on record of Court covered under
Section 215 (1)(b) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(‘BNSS’ for short).
3. Brief facts giving rise to present writ petition are as
under:
The State of Maharashtra initiated land acquisition proceeding
for construction of Atalgavhan Minor Irrigation Tank. On 14.07.2011,
notification under Section 4 was published and on 29.09.2012, award
under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act came to be passed.
Aggrieved land owners made references under Section 18 of Land
Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of compensation. The Reference

wp-1156-2026.odt

(3)
Court issued notice to respondents. They filed written statement
opposing enhancement of compensation. During pendency of claim
petition, respondents noticed that claimants in L.A.R. Nos.5 of 2025
to 13 of 2025 prepared forged and fabricated documents, hence, they
filed additional written statement contending that L.A.R. Nos. 5 of
2025 to 13 of 2025 have been presented to District Court along with
forged reference letters dated 12.03.2025, purportedly issued by
SLAO. The SLAO, who was in-charge noted that her signature and
letter head is manipulated document. The reference letter dated
12.03.2025 containing 9 references is bogus document.
4. Eventually, Reference Court framed additional issues 3A
to 3C. Smt. Jayashri Mali, SLAO recorded her evidence before Court
stating that claimants in L.A.R. Nos.5 of 2025 to 13 of 2025 or their
advocates never submitted written applications/petitions to Collector,
Jalgaon seeking reference for redetermination of compensation under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. All those references were directly
presented to District Court with forged and fabricated reference letter
dated 12.03.2025 in name of Land Acquisition Officer. She testified
that even references presented in the year 2017 were presented with
fabricated undated reference letters purported to be issued by Land
Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation, Jalgaon vide Outward No.
L.A.Q./S.R./32/07, Appendix VI, Statement under Section 11 and
Index 18. All aforesaid documents bears forged stamp and signatures.

wp-1156-2026.odt

(4)
5. The SLAO was in depth cross-examined on behalf of
claimants. The Reference Court after appreciating of evidence on
record observed that claimants in all disputed references and their
advocates have been interfering in administration of justice by
preparing and producing forged and fabricated document for
presentation claim for enhancement of compensation and mislead
Court to pass wrong awards. The Court held that evidence on record
is sufficient to form opinion that offences specified under Section 215
(1)(b) of BNSS have been committed by claimants and their
advocates in all disputed references. The Court has further observed
under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, Court is empowered to
issue directions to make a complaint to police when serious offence of
forgery appears to have been committed. Eventually, impugned
directions have been issued.
6. Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, learned senior advocate appearing
for petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is in practice since year
2023, petitioner no.2 entered profession in year 2012 and petitioner
no.3 is in practice since 2018. They filed their vakalatnamas during
pendency of references. Apparently, claim petitions were presented
by previous advocates along with so-called forged reference letters.
The petitioners were not representing claimants in L.A.R. No.5 of
2025. The petitioners were not given opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses or opportunity of hearing before issuing impugned

wp-1156-2026.odt

(5)
directions. The learned Presiding Officer of Reference Court acted as
whistle blower and also decided the case. The impugned directions
and findings have drastic effect like putting stigma on petitioners
career and reputations. Hence, it is urged to allow writ petitions by
setting aside impugned directions. In support of contentions, Mr.
Deshmukh relies upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita Rani and Ors reported in AIR 2021 SC 3593,
The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Naim reported in AIR
1964 SC 703 and in case of Dushyant Mainali Vs. Diwan Singh Bora
and Another in Civil Appeal (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15191 of
2022 decided on 25.11.2024.
7. Per contra, Mr. A.B. Girase, learned Government Pleader
submitted that Reference Court upon scrutiny of evidence recorded in
Land Acquisition Reference No.05 of 2025 arrived at a conclusion that
there is sufficient material to form opinion that offences referred into
Section 215 of BNSS have been committed. Eventually, issued
directions to District Collector to take necessary action. Similarly,
issued directions to Superintendent of Civil Court to file appropriate
complaint before Magistrate. Mr. Girase would submit that in case of
Union of India Vs. W.N. Chadha reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that providing an opportunity of
hearing to the accused in every criminal case before taking any action
against them would frustrate the proceedings, obstruct taking of

wp-1156-2026.odt

(6)
prompt action as law demands, defeat the ends of justice and make
the provisions of law relating to the investigation lifeless, absurd, and
self-defeating. According to Mr. Girase, right of hearing before
registration of FIR is not available to accused. In present case,
observations made in impugned order and consequential directions
are based on evidence recorded before Court, which is sufficient to
form a prima facie opinion as to commission of offence and set law in
motion by registering the FIR or filing complaint. In support of his
contention, Mr. Girase heavily relies upon observations of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of State of Bank of India and Others Vs. Rajesh
Agarwal and Others reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1.
8. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that
impugned directions are given by Reference Court while deciding
L.A.R. No.5 of 2025, which has been ultimately dismissed, petitioners
herein are advocates practicing at Jalgaon District Court. The
Reference Court issued directions to Collector to lodge FIR/police
report through authorized officer against all claimants and their
advocates in L.A.R. Nos. 74 of 2017 to 81 of 2017 and L.A.R. Nos.5 of
2025 to 13 of 2025, who are responsible for fabrication and
manipulation of documents. Similarly, Assistant Superintendent of
Court is directed and authorized to file separate complaint with
Judicial Magistrate First Class against claimants and advocates in

wp-1156-2026.odt

(7)
L.A.R. Nos. 74 of 2017 to 81 of 2017 and L.A.R. Nos.5 of 2025 to 13
of 2025 for offences submitted on record of Court covered under
Section 215(1)(b) of BNSS 2023.
9. The careful scrutiny of record in respect of aforesaid land
acquisition references depict that references were presented by
Advocate Kishore B. Patil along with disputed reference letter of Land
Acquisition Officer and other disputed documents (at Exh.1, 1A to 1D,
64 to 100D). The Reference Court upon scrutiny of evidence of Smt.
Jayashri, Incharge SLAO formed opinion that Advocate Mr. Kishore B.
Patil and his Associates were having knowledge of forgery of aforesaid
documents since inception and they used same as genuine for
presentation of all disputed references (L.A.R. Nos.5 of 2025 to 13 of
2025 and L.A.R. Nos.74 of 2017 to 81 of 2017) before District Court
and they have practiced or played fraud upon Court as well as
respondents and obtained awards.
10. The record indicates that petitioner nos.1 & 3 were not
representing claimants at the time when land acquisition references
were submitted to Court. The copies of vakalatnama filed in claim
petitions are placed into service before this Court. It is discernible that
petitioner nos.1 & 3 have signed vakalatnama first time on
12.07.2024 or sometime during pendency of proceeding. It has been
brought on record that petitioner no.1 is in practice since 2023,
petitioner no.3 is in practice since 2018. As such, when land

wp-1156-2026.odt

(8)
acquisition references were presented to Court in 2015 to 2017, they
were not even practicing advocates. So far as petitioner no.2 is
concerned, he is said to be in practice from 2012 and his vakalatnama
appears to have been filed in L.A.R. Nos.76 of 2017 and 77 of 2017
along with Advocate Mr. Kishore B. Patil. In view of the aforesaid
factual backdrop, this Court finds that petitioner no.1 and petitioner
no.3 cannot be held responsible for presentation of land acquisition
references along with forged documents. There is no reason to form
opinion that they have committed any offence on record of Court.
11. So far as second contention of petitioners that they were
not given opportunity of hearing before issuing impugned directions
or directions are issued without adherence to principles of natural
justice, this Court finds that reference can be given to provisions of
Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Section 379 of BNSS,
2023) which reads thus :
“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. - When
upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any
Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice
that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in
clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of section 195, which appears to
have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that
Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court,
such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it
thinks necessary, -
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having
jurisdiction;

wp-1156-2026.odt

(9)
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused
before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-
bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the
accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before
such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by Sub-Section (1) in
respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has
neither made a complaint under Sub-Section (1) in respect of
that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such
complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former
Court is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-Section (4) of
section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed;
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by
such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or
by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in
writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in
section 195.”
12. In case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another Vs.
Meenakshi Marwah and Another reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370,
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :
“23. In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the
Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of
an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the Section is
conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient
in the interest of justice." This shows that such a course will be
adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every
case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a
preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is
expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made
into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(i)(b). This
expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing
not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by
such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect
or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration
of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery
may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the
sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or
status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of

wp-1156-2026.odt

(10)
evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where
voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of
such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of
justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the Court may
not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a
complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by
learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of
such forgery or forged document remedyless. Any interpretation
which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered
remedyless, has to be discarded.”
13. The substance of aforesaid extract is that before filing
complaint for an offence referred in Section 195(1)(b), Court may
hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is
expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into
any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b) and having
regard to the effect and impact of such commission of offence upon
administration of justice, Court may consider to make a complaint. In
case of The State of Punjab Vs. Jasbir Singh reported in (2020) 12
SCC 96, Division Bench of Supreme Court after referring to case of
Pritish Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 1 SCC 253 and
Sharad Pawar Vs. Jagmohan Dalmiya reported in (2010) 15 SCC 290,
observed that there is conflict of view as to whether preliminary
inquiry or opportunity of hearing to the person against whom
complaint is to be made is mandatory under Section 195. Accordingly,
reference was made to Larger Bench by framing following questions:
(i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an
opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a
complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a court?

wp-1156-2026.odt

(11)
(ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary
inquiry?
14. The Full Bench of Supreme Court answered the aforesaid
questions vide judgment dated 15.09.2022 and observed that
judgment in Pritish’s case and the Constitution Bench judgment in
Iqbal Singh Marwah's case (supra) have not been noted in order
passed in Sharad Pawar's case (supra). The answer thus to the first
question raised would be in the negative. Apparently, law laid down
by Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pritish (supra)
notes that purpose of preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
was not to find out whether a person is guilty or not, but only to
decide whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to inquire
into the offence. It was thus observed that Court is not obliged to
make a preliminary inquiry on a complaint, but if Court decides to do
so, it should make a finding that on facts it is expedient in the interest
of justice that offence should be further probed into.
15. The preliminary inquiry contemplated under sub-section
(1) of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is aimed to reach a finding whether it is
expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into offence which
appears to have been committed. Such an inquiry is not aimed to find
out if a person is guilty or not. Apart from the aforesaid fact, on
receipt of complaint to Magistrate under Section 340, he requires to
deal it as if it is instituted on police report. The Magistrate requires to
proceed under Section 238 to 243 of the Code. It is, therefore, clear

wp-1156-2026.odt

(12)
that Magistrate will have to satisfy himself after hearing the
prosecution and accused, as to whether allegations against the
accused are groundless. If he finds allegations to be groundless, he
has to discharge accused at the stage of recording evidence. However,
if Magistrate formed opinion in aforesaid inquiry that there is reason
to presume that accused has committed offence, he has to frame
charge in writing against the accused. If accused pleads not guilty,
then Magistrate has to proceed to conduct the trial.
16. Thus, person against whom complaint is made has legal
right to be heard whether he should be tried for the offence or not.
Once Magistrate called the accused to appear before him, it is open
for the person accused to satisfy Magistrate that allegations against
him are groundless and that he is entitled to be discharged. In light
of aforesaid scheme, there appears no statutory requirement to afford
opportunity of hearing to the person against whom Court might direct
to file a complaint before Magistrate for initiating prosecution
proceedings. The scheme under Section 340 of the Code shows that
inquiry contemplated under Section 340 is not for deciding guilt or
innocence of parties against whom proceedings are to be taken before
Magistrate.
17. Although Mr. Deshmukh, learned senior advocate
appearing for petitioners relied upon observations of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Mohammad Naim (supra) and Dushyant

wp-1156-2026.odt

(13)
Mainali (supra) to contend that petitioners were entitled for
opportunity of hearing and Courts including of highest Court of
Country are bound by principles of natural justice. It is fairly settled
that principles of natural justice are not applicable at the stage of
reporting a criminal offence, as providing an opportunity of hearing
to accused in every criminal case before taking any action against him
would frustrate the proceedings, obstruct taking of prompt action of
law, defeat the ends of justice and make provisions of law relating to
investigation lifeless, absurd and self-defeating.
18. In light of aforesaid legal and factual matrix, it is difficult
to countenance contentions of petitioners that impugned order is
vitiated for want of adherence to principles of natural justice.
19. The impugned order depicts that Reference Court formed
an opinion during course of trial of land acquisition references. The
evidence was led on behalf of respondent authorities that documents
tendered along with references were forged and fabricated. The In-
charge SLAO stepped into witness box, proved the official record. She
was cross-examined by advocate appearing on behalf of claimants.
The Reference Court considered evidence tendered and formed an
opinion about commission of offence in respect of documents
produced in record of Court. The opinion formed by the Court is
based on in-depth inquiry during course of trial of the reference. It
cannot be treated as finding of guilt against the petitioners. It is well

wp-1156-2026.odt

(14)
settled that as a matter of course, the Court need not conduct
preliminary inquiry before initiating action under Section 340, as the
Court only decides whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to
inquire into offence which appears to have been committed.
20. In result, this Court finds that there is no substance in
contention of the petitioners that impugned directions are vitiated for
want of adherence to principles of natural justice.
21. However, in light of fact that petitioner nos.1 and 3 had
not even entered into practice when references were made to the
Court and they signed vakalatnama before the Reference Court with
intention to assist senior advocate who had presented claim petitions,
no action is necessary against them. The impugned directions in
Clause Nos.3 and 4 of order dated 19.01.2026 in L.A.R. No. 5 of 2025
deserves to be quashed and set aside to their extent only.
22. The petitioners raised one more objection that impugned
directions would result into registration of two independent
proceedings for one and the same offence, as directions are given to
Collector to lodge FIR/police report and further directions are given
to Assistant Superintendent of Court to file separate complaints with
Judicial Magistrate. This Court finds that aforesaid objection is
fallacious. On the basis of evidence led during course of trial,
Reference Court noticed that manipulated reference letter and
documents were used on record of Court for presentation, registration

wp-1156-2026.odt

(15)
and prosecution of land acquisition references. The offences of
preparation of false or manipulated documents are committed before
presentation of references to Court in connivance with many other
persons, who are not parties to petition. In that backdrop, for offence
covered under Section 215(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023, directions are given
to Assistant Superintendent of Court to file separate complaints with
Magistrate and for offences which are committed outside Court prior
to presentation of references, directions are given to Collector to
lodge FIR/police report. In this backdrop, pertinently, in light of law
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Iqbal Singh Marwah
(supra), Reference Court formed opinion regarding commission of
offences referred under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. (Section 215(1)
(b) of BNSS, 2023) and followed further procedure and left Collector
to lodge FIR in respect of offences which are not committed on record
of Court. This Court finds no fault in course adopted by Reference
Court while issuing two different directions.
23. In result, writ petition is partly allowed to the extent of
petitioner nos. 1 and 3 only. Writ Petition of petitioner no.2 stands
dismissed.
24. Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//