Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Dismissal of Complaint Under Section 156(3) CrPC. Concurrent Findings of Courts Below Upheld as Complaint Did Not Disclose Prima Facie Case.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 89
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in real estate, filed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the respondents, who are relatives of the partner. The complaint alleged that respondent no. 2 had agreed to sell agricultural land to the petitioner vide an agreement for sale dated 06.09.2004 for Rs. 16,00,000, and the entire consideration was paid. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on 27.01.2005. However, the petitioner received a legal notice dated 25.08.2015 from respondent no. 1 stating that respondent no. 2 had revoked the power of attorney due to a gift deed executed in favour of respondent no. 1. The petitioner replied on 07.10.2015. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur dismissed the complaint vide order dated 20.07.2023 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1600/2023. The petitioner challenged this order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 226/2023, which was also dismissed on 14.08.2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156(3) CrPC - Dismissal of Complaint - Concurrent Findings - The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging fraud and dishonour of cheque. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint, and the Sessions Judge upheld the dismissal in revision. The High Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings as the complaint did not disclose any prima facie case. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below dismissing the petitioner's complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge.

Law Points

  • Section 156(3) CrPC
  • power of attorney revocation
  • gift deed
  • criminal complaint
  • concurrent findings
  • writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025:BHC-NAG:11773

Criminal Writ Petition No. 319/2025

2025-11-11

M. M. Nerlikar, J.

2025:BHC-NAG:11773

Mr. R.S. Parsodkar for petitioner, Mr. R.D. Dharmadhikari for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. A. M. Joshi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3

Jain Real Estate Builders through its partner Sunil Inderchand Banthia

Parag Prakash Banthia, Smt. Usha w/o Prakash Banthia, The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition challenging dismissal of complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to quash the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge and to direct investigation into the complaint.

Filing Reason

Petitioner alleged that respondents committed fraud by revoking power of attorney and executing gift deed despite receiving full consideration for sale of land.

Previous Decisions

Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed complaint on 20.07.2023; Additional Sessions Judge dismissed revision on 14.08.2024.

Issues

Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case of fraud and dishonour of cheque. Respondents contended that the complaint was frivolous and the courts below rightly dismissed it.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below as the complaint did not disclose any prima facie case.

Judgment Excerpts

By way of this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No.226/2023 and the order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.6, Nagpur in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1600/2023, wherein the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”) was dismissed.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC before JMFC, Nagpur, which was dismissed on 20.07.2023. Petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 226/2023 before Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, which was dismissed on 14.08.2024. Petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 319/2025 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 11.11.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 156(3)
  • Constitution of India: 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Arbitration Award in Cooperative Bank Dispute — No Interference Under Article 227 as Concurrent Findings of Fact and Law Are Not Perverse. The Court upheld the recovery certificate issued under ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Dismissal of Complaint Under Section 156(3) CrPC. Concurrent Findings of Courts Below Upheld as Complaint Did Not Disclose Prima Facie Case.