Synopsis

The petitioners, property aggregators, were accused of cheating complainants to the tune of ₹3.70 crores by inducing them to enter into multiple memoranda of understanding (mous) for sale of properties in goa, falsely representing that they had clear and marketable title while suppressing pending inventory proceedings, tenancy disputes, and lack of authority from all co‑owners. the investigation revealed that the petitioners had manipulated documents, executed overlapping mous for the same property with different buyers, and collected substantial advances. the bombay high court refused to quash the fir, holding that the allegations, at face value, disclosed the ingredients of cheating; the investigation was at a nascent stage; and the case did not fall within the parameters for quashing laid down in state of haryana v. bhajan lal.

Court: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashish S. Chavan (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 18th May 2026

Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:1051

Core Law: Criminal Procedure – Section 482 of CrPC (analogous to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023); Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 120-B (cheating and criminal conspiracy); Quashing of FIR.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of bombay at goa

Criminal writ petition no. 50 of 2025

Jeremias e souza and anr. (petitioners) vs. State of goa, through the chief secretary of goa and 2 ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice ashish s. chavan

Reserved on: 29th april, 2026; pronounced on: 18th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Indian penal code, 1860 – sections 420 (cheating), 120‑b (criminal conspiracy)

• Code of criminal procedure, 1973 – section 482 (inherent powers to quash fir) (corresponding to section 528 of bharatiya nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023)

• Constitution of india, 1950 – article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

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