Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court

"Dispute in its current avatar... has certainly undergone a metamorphosis into a criminal dispute which ought not to have been scuttled at the threshold, and in fact ought to have been considered on its own merits, in accordance with law," Bombay High Court, in a detailed judgment, held that the delay in invoking the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) can be justified if witnesses and complainants were under the "terror and fright" of a gangster.

A bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale observed that while a dispute might originate from civil transactions, it can evolve into a criminal offence if organized crime elements are introduced to settle scores.

The court dismissed the challenge to MCOCA proceedings filed by two businessmen accused of using gangster Ravi Pujari's services, while quashing the charges against a third petitioner whose involvement was found to be based on mere suspicion.

The case arose from long-standing disputes regarding development rights of land in Powai and Bandra involving Varshraj Realtors. The complainant, Kamal Sheth, alleged that the petitioners, Rajan Sujanani and Kishore Vatnani, used the services of gangster Ravi Pujari to issue death threats and extort him into settling civil litigations. Although an 'A-Summary' report (true but undetected) was initially filed in 2015, the case was reopened following Pujari's extradition, leading to the invocation of MCOCA in 2022.

The primary question before the court was whether a nine-year delay in invoking MCOCA and a six-year delay in providing a Section 65-B certificate under the Evidence Act vitiated the prosecution. The court was also called upon to determine if a dispute essentially civil in nature could be prosecuted under MCOCA if it involved an organized crime syndicate.

Terror Perception Explains Delay In Invoking MCOCA

The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the delay of nine years in invoking MCOCA was fatal to the prosecution. The bench noted that the explanation offered by the witnesses—that they were paralyzed by fear until the arrest of Ravi Pujari in 2021 and the death of an intermediary—was reasonable.

The judges observed that the conduct of the witnesses must be viewed through the lens of an ordinary person facing threats from an international crime syndicate. The court held that the Respondent No. 2 cannot be blamed for the negligence or omissions of the investigating authorities during the initial years of the probe.

"The explanation for the delay offered by the witnesses is that, due to the terror and fright of gangster Ravi Pujari and Parshuram Shinde, the witnesses had not mentioned any details in the statements recorded before the ‘A Summary’ was filed."

Civil Disputes Metamorphosing Into Criminal Offences

Addressing the argument that the dispute was purely civil-commercial, the High Court emphasized that criminal and civil liability can arise from the same set of facts. The bench noted that even if a dispute starts over property rights, the moment a party employs a crime syndicate to intimidate the opponent, the matter enters the criminal domain.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the pendency of civil proceedings is no justification to quash criminal proceedings if a prima facie case of extortion and organized crime is established.

"Undoubtedly, the genesis of the present dispute emanates from civil proceedings... however, the dispute in its current avatar... has certainly undergone a metamorphosis into a criminal dispute."

Delivery Of Property Not Necessary For Section 387 IPC

The petitioners argued that no case of extortion was made out because no property was actually delivered. However, the Court drew a sharp distinction between Section 384 (Extortion) and Section 387 (Putting person in fear of death in order to commit extortion) of the IPC.

The bench held that Section 387 is a stage before the actual commission of extortion and criminalizes the process itself. Therefore, for an offence under Section 387, the delivery of property is not a prerequisite for prosecution.

"By section 387 of the IPC, the Legislature has thought it appropriate and necessary to criminalize and make an offence even the process of extortion... the delivery of property is not at all necessary."

Section 65-B Certificate Is A Curable Defect

The court dismissed the objection regarding the late submission of the Section 65-B certificate for electronic evidence. It held that non-production of the certificate at the initial stage is a curable defect and it can be produced at any stage before the conclusion of the trial.

The bench clarified that the trial court must allow the prosecution an opportunity to lead evidence to establish the validity of the sanction and the electronic records during the trial process.

"It is well settled... that non-production of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is a curable defect... the certificate can be produced at any stage so long as the trial has not concluded."

Quashing Of Charges Against Mangesh Sawant

While the court found sufficient material against Sujanani and Vatnani, it reached a different conclusion for the third petitioner, Mangesh Sawant. The bench found that Sawant's name did not appear in the extortion call transcripts and there was no credible information linking him to the syndicate.

The court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, and roping in an individual without a demonstrated nexus to the organized crime syndicate is unsustainable.

"The availability, on record, of credible information and material to link the accused [Sawant] to the crime or the syndicate, is clearly absent... suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof."

The High Court dismissed the writ petition of Rajan Sujanani and Kishore Vatnani, allowing the trial under MCOCA to proceed. However, it allowed the petition of Mangesh Sawant and quashed the proceedings against him, noting the lack of any prima facie link to the organized crime syndicate. The court also rejected the prayer to stay the operation of this judgment for four weeks.

Date of Decision: 09 June 2026