HC quashes criminal proceedings against Petit trustees over Tardeo property sale

A single-judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav last week set aside an August 2017 order of the magistrate court, which had issued process against five trustees and the trust’s chief operating officer for offences punishable under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467 And 468 (forgery), read with 34 (common intention) of Indian Penal Code (IPC

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the trustees of Nusserwanjee Maneckjee Petit Charitable Institution over allegations of forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust in connection with the sale of its Tardeo property. The court held that the auction process was conducted in a “fair and transparent manner”.

HC quashes criminal proceedings against Petit trustees over Tardeo property sale

A single-judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav last week set aside an August 2017 order of the magistrate court, which had issued process against five trustees and the trust’s chief operating officer for offences punishable under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467 And 468 (forgery), read with 34 (common intention) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The dispute concerned a plot in Tardeo that was owned by the Petit charitable trust. The property has been leased in 1901 for 99 years and, after the lease expired without renewal, was returned to the Trust. A building called Daruwala House stood on the property and housed several tenants. In 2011, the trust decided to sell the property through a public auction and subsequently, received sanction from the Joint Charity Commissioner. The property was auctioned in April 2011. The first highest bidders offered ₹92 lakh and ₹91 lakh respectively but failed to deposit the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). The third highest bidder, Sikandar Kachwala, offered ₹ 61 lakh and a conveyance deed executed in his favour in 2012.

The three tenants challenged the permission granted by the Joint Charity Commissioner

for the sale on grounds of alleged fraud by the trustees. The Charity Commissioner rejected the challenge in 2017.

The complainant, who was also one of the bidders, alleged that the trustees had forged minutes of the meeting to accept the third highest bid and conspired to sell the property at an undervalued price. A police investigation, however, concluded that no such offence was made out and that the dispute was civil in nature. Despite this, the magistrate court issued process against the trustees in 2017.

The court, however, noted that the tenants who participated in the auction, offered a bid of just ₹17 lakh and, when given an opportunity to increase their bids, raised it to only ₹21 lakh. “There is nothing incriminating or any procedural defect observed in the bid process”, it observed.

The bench also referred to an order passed by the high court in June 2026, which dealt with the challenge to the Charity Commissioner’s order in 2017. The court had then recorded that neither the grounds raised nor the material placed on record demonstrate that the trust had obtained the sale permission through fraud. It also indicated that the auction process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

Justice Jadhav held that the material placed on record, including the valuation report and the steps taken by the trust, showed a “prima facie transparent” process. Observing that the magistrate court’s order issuing process against the trustees is “cursory and without application of mind”. The high court accordingly quashed and set aside the magistrate’s order.