Synopsis

The petitioners (Rajan Sujanani and Kishor Vatnani) and another petitioner (Mangesh Sawant) sought quashing of a chargesheet filed under MCOCA and IPC for alleged extortion calls made by gangster Ravi Pujari at their behest. The complainant alleged that he received threatening calls from Ravi Pujari on 3rd and 4th September 2013, directing him to settle ongoing civil disputes with Sujanani and Vatnani. An ‘A’ Summary Report was initially filed, but upon a protest petition, further investigation was ordered. Statements of witnesses were recorded after the extradition of Ravi Pujari (2020) and death of Parshuram Shinde. The High Court dismissed the petition of Sujanani and Vatnani, holding that a prima facie case of extortion under Section 387 IPC and organised crime under MCOCA was made out against them. However, the petition of Mangesh Sawant was allowed, as his name did not appear in the threat calls or transcripts, and there was no material linking him to the syndicate.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay criminal appellate jurisdiction

Criminal writ petition no. 622 of 2024 with criminal writ petition no. 2317 of 2023

Rajan bhagwandas sujanani & anr. (petitioners in wp/622/2024) and Mangesh tukaram sawant (petitioner in wp/2317/2023) vs. State of maharashtra & anr. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice a.s. gadkari and hon’ble mr. justice ranjitsinha raja bhonsale

Core Law: Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) – Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e), 2(1)(f), 3, 23(1)(a), 23(2) – Offence of extortion under Sections 383, 386, 387 IPC – Quashing of chargesheet under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Gadkari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale (Division Bench)
Date of Judgment: June 9, 2026 (Reserved on November 25, 2025)
Case Nos.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 622 of 2024 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 2317 of 2023
Citation: Not reported (unreported)

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) – Section 2(1)(d) (continuing unlawful activity), Section 2(1)(e) (organised crime), Section 2(1)(f) (organised crime syndicate), Section 3(1) to 3(5) (punishment for organised crime), Section 23(1)(a) (prior approval for investigation), Section 23(2) (sanction for prosecution)

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 383 (extortion), 386 (extortion by putting in fear of death or grievous hurt), 387 (putting in fear of death or grievous hurt to commit extortion), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intention)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 482 (inherent powers to quash), 156(3), 161, 164, 311

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC)

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65B (admissibility of electronic evidence)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should quash a chargesheet filed under MCOCA and IPC for the offence of extortion where the complainant received threatening calls from a known gangster at the behest of the accused persons, and whether the prior approval and sanction under Section 23 MCOCA are valid.

Key legal principles applied:

• Prima facie case standard under Section 482: The court, while considering quashing, must only see whether the allegations taken at face value disclose the ingredients of the offence. It cannot conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence. (Bhajan Lal categories, M. Devendrappa)

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.