The Bombay High Court has clarified that for invoking the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), what is material is the prima facie existence of a link or nexus between the accused and the organised crime syndicate or the organised crime. Direct participation in every overt act is not indispensable so long as the requisite nexus is disclosed from the material on record. At the stage of a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court is not to conduct a mini-trial or undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence, but only to assess whether the complaint, statements and collected material disclose a prima facie case.
The Court further held that where a prima facie case exists, proceedings ought not to be quashed merely because there is delay in investigation, because civil proceedings are pending between the parties, because mala fides are alleged, or because the challenge is mounted to sanction, approval or electronic evidence, particularly where such issues are capable of being examined at trial. The Court also laid down that for Section 387 IPC, delivery of property is not a necessary ingredient in the same way as for completed extortion under Section 383 IPC, since Section 387 criminalises the act of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion. Further, non-production of a Section 65-B certificate at the initial stage is a curable defect and does not by itself justify quashing of proceedings.
Accordingly, the Court refused to quash the chargesheet, prior approval, sanction and consequential proceedings against Rajan Sujanani and Kishor Vatnani.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale observed that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case against Rajan Sujanani and Kishor Vatnani. It noted that from the inception of the case, the allegations of threat and extortion were consistently directed against them, and the transcripts of the calls specifically referred to their names and to settlement of the Powai dispute in accordance with their directions. The Bench also found witness material indicating meetings, alleged use of the services of Ravi Pujari, and transactions involving money allegedly linked to the organised crime syndicate.
On the question of delay, the Bench observed that although MCOCA was invoked years after the original FIR, the complainant had acted promptly in lodging complaints in September 2013 and had followed up continuously thereafter. The subsequent delay was explained prima facie by the filing of the A-Summary report, the protest petition, the extradition of Ravi Pujari, and the fear and terror allegedly created by Ravi Pujari and Parshuram Shinde, which deterred witnesses from making full disclosures earlier. The Bench held that the explanation for the delay was reasonable and plausible at the prima facie stage and that the issue remained open for trial.
The Bench rejected the contention that the dispute was purely civil. It held that while the genesis of the controversy lay in commercial and property dealings and while civil proceedings were admittedly pending, the criminal proceedings were based on an independent cause of action arising from the alleged threat and extortion calls made from 3 September 2013 onwards. The pendency of civil litigation did not bar criminal prosecution where the ingredients of the alleged criminal offences were prima facie disclosed.
On prior approval and sanction under MCOCA, the Bench held prima facie that the orders were founded on material including the FIR, panchanama, witness statements, transcripts and investigation papers. It observed that even if an approval or sanction order does not set out every item of material in detail, that by itself is not fatal. The validity of approval and sanction could be tested at trial, including by examining and cross-examining the sanctioning authority.
The Bench also held that the challenge based on the absence of delivery of property was untenable in the context of Section 387 IPC. It observed that Section 387 criminalises putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, and therefore delivery of property is not necessary for prosecution under that provision. It further held that the belated production of a Section 65-B certificate was a curable defect and could not be a ground to quash the proceedings at this stage.
However, the Bench found the case against Mangesh Sawant to be unsustainable. It noted that his name did not feature in the threat calls or the transcripts, and that the core allegations from the outset were directed against Rajan Sujanani, Kishor Vatnani, Hari Ramnani, Ravi Pujari and his associates. On the material before it, the Bench found that proceedings against Sawant were based on mere suspicion rather than credible information or material linking him to the organised crime or syndicate.
Briefly, the petitions arose from a challenge to the chargesheet filed in MCOCA Special Case together with the prior approval dated 12 September 2022 under Section 23(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), and the sanction dated 21 February 2023 under Section 23(2) of MCOCA. The case originated from FIR registered at Juhu Police Station for offences under Sections 387, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, later transferred to the Anti-Extortion Cell. The petitioners sought quashing of the criminal proceedings and all consequential steps.
The background of the dispute lay in commercial and property transactions concerning development rights in Powai land and the ownership and control of Varshraj Realtors Pvt Ltd. Various agreements had been executed between developers and related parties, disputes had arisen over assignment of development rights, and civil proceedings as well as arbitral proceedings were pending between the parties. Respondent No. 2 had entered into an arrangement in 2008 to acquire Varshraj Realtors, paid substantial sums, and later alleged that the petitioners sought to exclude him from the transaction and deal with others in relation to the same assets.
According to Respondent No. 2, he received threatening calls on 3 September 2013 and 4 September 2013 from a caller identifying himself as gangster Ravi Pujari, who allegedly directed him to settle the dispute with Rajan Sujanani and Kishor Vatnani. Complaints were made immediately thereafter on 4 September 2013, 6 September 2013 and 23 September 2013. FIR came to be registered on 22 November 2013, and a transcript panchnama of the alleged conversation was prepared on 30 November 2013.
An A-Summary report was initially filed in the case. However, Respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition, which was allowed on 23 December 2021, leading to further investigation. During 2022, statements of witnesses were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. Thereafter, prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA was granted on 12 September 2022, sanction under Section 23(2) MCOCA was granted on 21 February 2023, and a chargesheet was filed on 6 March 2023.
