Mumbai, November 02, 2026: The Thane Sessions Court has dismissed a revision application filed by 13 residents of a housing society in Mira Road, who had challenged a Magistrate’s order issuing criminal process against them for allegedly assaulting a fellow resident and his wife, threatening their family and attempting to set their flat on fire.
The court, in its order, maintained that the complaint alleges hurt along with an object of extorting money, and whether that allegation is borne out will be determined through evidence. It also observed that the Magistrate may re-examine the sustainability of any section at the stage of charge or discharge.
Additional Sessions Judge V. L. Bhosale, in an order passed on October 31, held that the allegations, if taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of the offences and did not warrant interference at the revision stage. The court directed the Magistrate to proceed with the criminal case in accordance with law.
Complaint Over Alleged Assault And Arson
The case arose from a complaint filed by Ramesh Yadav, a resident of Shanti Park in Mira Road, against 13 residents of Poonam Estate Cluster 2. The complainant alleged that the accused had targeted his family after his daughter exposed alleged GST irregularities in the housing society.
According to the complaint, the accused allegedly attempted to burn his flat using camphor, threatened him and his family with death, and assaulted him and his wife. He also alleged that his family was defamed through messages circulated on the society's WhatsApp group.
Yadav had initially approached the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a police investigation. However, on April 2, 2024, the Magistrate rejected the request for a police investigation and treated the application as a private complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC. After recording the complainant's verification statement, the Magistrate issued process against the 13 accused on August 21, 2024.
Applicants Cite Housing Society Dispute
Challenging the order, the accused argued that the complaint was a vindictive attempt to misuse criminal law in an ongoing dispute over the management of the housing society and the removal of the complainant's daughter as its ad-hoc secretary. They also pointed out that cross non-cognisable reports (NCRs) had been registered between the parties.
The applicants further contended that the allegations did not establish the ingredients of offences under Sections 436, 354 and 327 of the IPC. They argued that there was no roof on the 19th-floor flat, the gas meters were installed inside the flats with safety cut-offs, and there was no allegation of criminal force against a woman or any demand for property. They also claimed that the allegations against all 13 accused were general in nature and pointed out that one of the applicants was studying in the UAE.
Another ground raised by the applicants was the complainant's failure to produce CCTV footage in a pen drive or video format despite claiming that the society had installed cameras.
Court Rejects CCTV Footage Argument
Rejecting this contention, the Sessions Court observed that the Magistrate's earlier order recorded that non-cognisable reports, medical reports, WhatsApp screenshots and CCTV photographs had been submitted. It held that video footage was only one mode of evidence and its absence did not render the complainant's sworn statement and other documents untrustworthy at the stage of issuing process.
The court also noted that, according to the applicants' own pleadings, one of them was the society's chairman and another its secretary, and that the society controlled the CCTV system. The complainant had alleged that the footage was deleted by the accused.
“Whether any footage exists or was preserved, whether it is admissible, and what weight it carries, are questions of evidence for the trial Court. They cannot be answered in revision without weighing the evidence. The Applicants may apply to the trial Court for production or preservation of the footage,” the order copy reads.
The court further held that whether the CCTV footage existed, was preserved or could be admitted as evidence were matters to be examined during the trial. The applicants were free to approach the trial court seeking its production or preservation.
Allegations To Be Examined During Trial
The court held that the allegations, if accepted at face value, disclosed the ingredients of the offences at the stage of issuing process. It also observed that the question of whether the allegation of causing hurt was accompanied by an intention to extort money, as required under Section 327, would have to be examined on the basis of evidence.
Also Watch:
The judge said that the existence of cross-complaints, allegations of personal vendetta, delay and the underlying society dispute were matters of defence and credibility that required examination during the trial. A housing society dispute could not shield allegations of arson, assault and threats from criminal proceedings.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
