VARSHA MANGUIRISH PAI RAIKER DALVI ASHWIIN PANDURANG vs THE STATE OF GOA THR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR — WPCR/145/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section ARTICLE227. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 18th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM050040552025

e-Filing Number

13-11-2025

Filing Number

WPCR/1130/2025

Filing Date

13-Nov-2025

Registration No

WPCR/145/2026

Registration Date

18-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. Chavan

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. Chavan

Bench Type

Single

Category

CRIMINAL ( 9 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIAL SECTION

Decision Date

18-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section ARTICLE227
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VARSHA MANGUIRISH PAI RAIKER DALVI ASHWIIN PANDURANG

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GOA THR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR

  2. 2.MAYA D. PAI RAIKER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. ChavanView PDF

    Case Summary: WPCR-1130-2025(F) Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay at Goa allowed the writ petition and quashed the trial court's summoning order dated 11.08.2025, finding no prima facie case for criminal charges against Varsha Manguirish Pai Raiker. Key Reasoning: The court held that the complaint's allegations of misrepresentation, cheating, and forgery lack substantiation. Critical documents (Hire Purchase Agreements and Sale Deed) were validly executed by the petitioner in her capacity as proprietor of her proprietary concern M/s. S.R. Enterprises, not as partner of the similarly-named partnership firm. The trial court's summoning order lacked reasoned analysis and the Sub-Registrar's testimony on procedural irregularities did not establish forgery. The court found no evidence of fraudulent intent, deception, or wrongful loss to the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. ChavanView PDF

  4. 06-May-2026

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. Chavan

  5. 29-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. ChavanView PDF

  6. 29-Apr-2026

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. Chavan

  7. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. ChavanView PDF

  8. 17-Apr-2026

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. Chavan

  9. 30-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. ChavanView PDF

  10. 30-Mar-2026

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. Chavan

  11. 09-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. ChavanView PDF

  12. 09-Mar-2026

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. Chavan

  13. 23-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. ChavanView PDF

  14. 23-Feb-2026

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. Chavan

  15. 09-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. ChavanView PDF

  16. 09-Feb-2026

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. Chavan

  17. 30-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. ChavanView PDF

  18. 30-Jan-2026

    For Admission - First On Board

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

  19. 16-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. JamsandekarView PDF

  20. 09-Jan-2026

    For Admission - First On Board

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. Chavan

  21. 21-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish S. ChavanView PDF

  22. 21-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 13-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPCR/145/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPCR-1130-2025(F) Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay at Goa allowed the writ petition and quashed the trial court's summoning order dated 11.08.2025, finding no prima facie case for criminal charges against Varsha Manguirish Pai Raiker. Key Reasoning: The court held that the complaint's allegations of misrepresentation, cheating, and forgery lack substantiation. Critical documents (Hire Purchase Agreements and Sale Deed) were validly executed by the petitioner in her capacity as proprietor of her proprietary concern M/s. S.R. Enterprises, not as partner of the similarly-named partnership firm. The trial court's summoning order lacked reasoned analysis and the Sub-Registrar's testimony on procedural irregularities did not establish forgery. The court found no evidence of fraudulent intent, deception, or wrongful loss to the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case