Bombay HC Splits MCOCA Verdict: Chargesheet Quashed for One Accused, Upheld for Two Others in Ravi Pujari Extortion Case
The Bombay High Court quashed MCOCA proceedings against Mangesh Sawant, finding his name absent from threat calls and transcripts, while dismissing the writ petitions of co-accused Rajan Sujanani and Kishore Vatnani.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, on 9 June 2026 delivered a split outcome in two connected writ petitions challenging MCOCA proceedings arising from an alleged extortion conspiracy linked to gangster Ravi Pujari. The bench dismissed Criminal Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024 filed by Rajan Sujanani and Kishore Vatnani, finding a prima facie case of organised crime against them. It simultaneously allowed Criminal Writ Petition No. 2317 of 2023 filed by Mangesh Sawant, quashing the chargesheet, prior approval, and sanction against him on the ground that his name does not appear anywhere in the threat calls, complaints, or transcripts that form the foundation of the prosecution. The judgment, authored by Justice Bhonsale, also declined to continue interim protection for Sujanani and Vatnani to approach the Supreme Court.
The Dispute Before the Court
The litigation traces its origins to a property development arrangement in Powai, Mumbai. In 1998, Rajan Sujanani, through Varshraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd., acquired development rights over approximately 1,30,000 sq. ft. of land. By agreements executed in 2001 and 2003, development rights over land at Adi Sankaracharya Marg, Powai — admeasuring 33,664 sq. metres — were assigned to Sailee Developers. In August 2007, Sailee Developers entered a joint venture with M/s Chandiwala Enterprises. Disputes between Varshraj Realtors and Sailee Developers followed when Varshraj learned that Sailee had transferred all development rights to Chandiwala. Civil Suit No. 3300 of 2007 was filed, and by December 2007 Chandiwala undertook to reserve 53,300 sq. ft. of built-up area to secure Varshraj's claim.
In July 2008, Sujanani and Vatnani entered into an agreement with Kamal Sheth (Respondent No. 2) to sell Varshraj Realtors on an “as is where is basis”. Between 2008 and August 2011, Sheth paid Rs. 15.6125 crores; the balance was to be paid by transferring properties, which did not materialise. Sheth filed Civil Suit No. 1418 of 2012 for specific performance of the July 2008 memorandum of understanding. Arbitration proceedings were also initiated in 2011 between Sailee Developers and Varshraj Realtors.
On 3 September 2013, Sheth received a call from a number with a foreign country code. The caller identified himself as gangster Ravi Pujari, threatened Sheth with death, and directed him to settle the Powai dispute in favour of Vatnani and Sujanani. A second call followed on 4 September 2013. Sheth filed complaints on 4 September, 6 September, and 23 September 2013. FIR No. 403 of 2013 was registered at Juhu Police Station on 22 November 2013 for offences under Sections 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was transferred to the Anti-Extortion Cell, renumbered as CR No. 115 of 2013, and Section 120-B IPC was added. A transcript panchnama of the alleged conversation between Sheth and Ravi Pujari was prepared on 30 November 2013, and the names of Vatnani and Sujanani were specifically mentioned in those transcripts.
An A-Summary Report was filed in the case. On 23 August 2017, Sheth filed a Protest Petition challenging that report. On 23 December 2021, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the Protest Petition and ordered further investigation. Ravi Pujari had been extradited from Senegal to India on 21 February 2020. Between April and August 2022, fresh statements were recorded. Prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA was granted by the Joint Commissioner of Police on 12 September 2022. Sanction under Section 23(2) of MCOCA was accorded by the Special Commissioner of Police on 21 February 2023. A chargesheet was filed on 6 March 2023 before the Special Judge, and cognizance was taken on 9 March 2023. The case was numbered MCOCA Special Case No. 298 of 2023.
Mangesh Sawant, a business partner of Sailee Developers, was also arraigned in the chargesheet. He filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 2317 of 2023 seeking quashing. Sujanani and Vatnani filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024. Both petitions sought quashing of the chargesheet, the prior approval of 12 September 2022, and the sanction of 21 February 2023.
The Legal Issues
The petitioners raised several overlapping challenges. Senior Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Sujanani and Vatnani, argued that MCOCA was invoked after an unexplained delay of approximately nine years from the date of the FIR. He contended that the A-Summary Report — which had specifically concluded there was no evidence against the petitioners — was not considered while granting prior approval or sanction, indicating non-application of mind. He further argued that witness Madhusudhan had in his statement of 10 September 2014 denied knowing Ravi Pujari, yet in a supplementary statement of 4 April 2022 gave a contradictory account, suggesting the later investigation was mala fide. The Section 65-B certificate under the Evidence Act was not produced at the time of the original investigation and was provided only in 2022. The mobile phones from which the alleged calls were made were never seized, and there was no voice identification to establish that the calls were from Ravi Pujari. Desai also argued that the extradition of Ravi Pujari was not based on the present FIR, and that since the main accused was not prosecuted in this case, the MCOCA proceedings ought to fail. He submitted that the entire dispute was civil-commercial in nature and was being given a criminal colour to coerce the petitioners.
Advocate Mutahhar Khan, for Sawant, adopted these submissions and added that Sawant's name does not appear in the transcripts at all. He pointed to an order of 30 October 2023 in Suit No. 446 of 2019 indicating that the parties had settled all disputes, which he argued removed any motive for threats.
Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, for Sheth, countered that the complaints were filed promptly after the calls. He explained the delay in witness statements by the fear and terror created by Ravi Pujari and Parshuram Shinde, and submitted that after Ravi Pujari's arrest and Shinde's death, witnesses gathered courage to speak. He argued that the transcripts clearly made out extortion, that the A-Summary Report had in fact been considered, and that all challenges to the sanction and the 65-B certificate were matters for trial. The Additional Public Prosecutor adopted the State's position and submitted that a clear prima facie case under MCOCA had been made out.
How the Bench Reasoned
The bench began by setting out the relevant provisions of MCOCA. Section 2(1)(d) defines “continuing unlawful activity” as an activity prohibited by law, punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, in respect of which more than one chargesheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding ten years and that court has taken cognizance. Section 2(1)(e) defines “organised crime” as any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, as a member of or on behalf of an organised crime syndicate, by use of violence, threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or undue economic advantage.
On the question of prior approval and sanction, the bench relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra and this Court's earlier judgments in Anil Sadashiv Naduskar v. State of Maharashtra and Sagar Balasaheb Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra. The settled position, the bench noted, is that an approval or sanction order need not on its face disclose consideration of material against each accused individually. If the order does not ex-facie show application of mind, the prosecution is entitled to establish that fact by leading evidence at trial. The validity of sanction is therefore a matter to be conclusively decided at the conclusion of trial, not at the threshold stage of quashing.
On the argument that the A-Summary Report was ignored, the bench found that the A-Summary Report had in fact been taken into consideration before the order of 12 September 2022 was passed, and that further investigation was directed pursuant to the Protest Petition being allowed. The bench held that the question of whether the A-Summary Report was adequately considered is one that can be raised and argued at trial.
On the delay in invoking MCOCA, the bench referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi, which held that delay in registration of an FIR for offences punishable with more than three years' imprisonment cannot by itself be a ground to quash proceedings. Whether the explanation for delay is plausible is a matter for the trial court after recording evidence. The bench accepted that the explanation offered — that witnesses were terrorised by Ravi Pujari and Parshuram Shinde and spoke up only after Pujari's arrest and Shinde's death — was a matter to be tested at trial.
On the Section 65-B certificate, the bench relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer, which held that non-production of a Section 65-B certificate is a curable defect and that the certificate can be produced at any stage so long as the trial has not concluded. The bench held that no fault could be found with the certificate being submitted in 2022.
On the nature of the offence, the bench addressed the distinction between Sections 386 and 387 IPC. Section 387 criminalises the act of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion. The bench, following the Supreme Court's analysis in M/s. Balaji Traders v. State of U.P., held that delivery of property is not a necessary ingredient for an offence under Section 387 IPC. The legislature has made the process of extortion — the stage before actual delivery — a distinct and independent offence. The bench therefore rejected the argument that no extortion was made out because no property was delivered.
On the argument that the dispute was purely civil, the bench referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar, which held that civil liability and criminal liability may arise from the same facts and that the pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings does not bar prosecution where the ingredients of a criminal offence are disclosed. The bench found that while the genesis of the dispute lay in civil proceedings over the Powai land, the allegations in the FIR had undergone a transformation into a criminal dispute that ought not to be quashed at the threshold.
On mala fides, the bench applied the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh. It held that the present case did not satisfy any of the parameters warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR against Sujanani and Vatnani. The allegations could not be classified as purely civil in nature.
The bench then turned to Sawant's case separately. It found that Sawant's name does not appear in the threat calls or the transcripts. A perusal of the complaints, witness statements, and transcripts made it clear that the case of extortion was, from inception, alleged only against Sujanani, Vatnani, Hari Ramnani, Ravi Pujari, and his associates Bali and Madhu Nimya. There was no reference to Sawant in any of these materials. The bench concluded that no prima facie case was made out against Sawant and that the chargesheet against him warranted quashing.
Outcome
Criminal Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024 filed by Rajan Sujanani and Kishore Vatnani was dismissed. The chargesheet in MCOCA Special Case No. 298 of 2023 and all consequential proceedings continue against them before the Special Judge.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2317 of 2023 filed by Mangesh Sawant was allowed. The chargesheet filed in CR No. 115 of 2013, culminating in MCOCA Special Case No. 298 of 2023, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside as against Sawant. The prior approval dated 12 September 2022 under Section 23(1) of MCOCA and the sanction dated 21 February 2023 under Section 23(2) of MCOCA, in connection with FIR No. 403 of 2013 registered at Juhu Police Station, were also quashed and set aside as against Sawant.
After pronouncement, Senior Advocate Desai sought continuation of interim relief for Sujanani and Vatnani for four weeks to enable them to approach the Supreme Court. The bench declined, rejecting the prayer for continuation of interim relief.