The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside a criminal case initiated against a businesswoman accused of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery in connection with a long-running dispute involving a partnership firm and industrial property. The Court held that the complaint failed to disclose the basic ingredients of the alleged offences and found no prima facie material to justify criminal prosecution.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose between Varsha Manguirish Pai Raiker and Maya D. Pai Raiker, who were partners in a firm operating under the name “M/s S.R. Enterprises.” Maya Pai Raiker filed a private complaint before a Goa court alleging that Varsha had falsely represented the partnership firm as her proprietary concern and had entered into various agreements and transactions with government authorities and financial institutions without disclosing the partnership structure.
The complainant further alleged that a sale deed relating to an industrial shed allotted by the Goa Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) had been fabricated and used to cheat both government authorities and the complainant. Based on the complaint and statements recorded during a preliminary inquiry, the trial court issued process against Varsha for offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery.
Justice Ashish S. Chavan closely examined the partnership deed, hire-purchase agreements and the disputed sale deed. The Court noted that the industrial sheds had originally been allotted to Varsha's proprietary concern long before the partnership arrangement came into existence.
The Court found that the agreements relied upon by the complainant clearly described Varsha as the proprietress of her concern and not as a partner of the partnership firm.
“The similarity of the names appears to be the root cause of the allegations of misrepresentation,” the Court observed while noting that the documents themselves did not support the claim of fraudulent representation.
On the allegation of forgery, the Court held that there was no material showing creation of a false document. Although the Sub-Registrar had spoken about current registration procedures and certain corrections appearing in the sale deed, his testimony did not establish that the document had been forged.
The Court also pointed out that the complaint contained only broad accusations and lacked specific allegations showing dishonest intention from the beginning of the transaction, inducement, wrongful loss or deception elements necessary to constitute offences of cheating.
The High Court concluded that neither the complaint nor the material collected during the pre-summoning inquiry disclosed a prima facie case for offences under the Indian Penal Code. It further noted that the trial court had issued process without adequately explaining how the ingredients of the alleged offences were made out.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the summoning order dated August 11, 2025, as well as all consequential proceedings arising from it.
“The complaint, its averments and the inquiry of the learned Trial Court do not make out a prima facie case for issuance of process against the Petitioner,” Justice Chavan held while setting aside the criminal proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Varsha Manguirish Pai Raiker v. State of Goa & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1130 of 2025(F)
Judge: Justice Ashish S. Chavan
Decision Date: May 18, 2026
