Authored by Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani | The Law Suits – Best Law Firm in Mumbai
Seema Nitin Dhakan v State of Maharashtra & Ors
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3533 of 2019
Bombay High Court
Order dated: 21 January 2026
Coram: Justice Shivkumar Dige
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that police authorities have no jurisdiction to seize or attach immovable property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without express orders of a competent court, and directed the release of two residential flats which had remained sealed since 2003.
Background
The writ petition was filed by Seema Nitin Dhakan, widow of late Mr. Nitin Dhakan, challenging the continued sealing of Flat Nos. 110 and 112, which were attached by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Mumbai, during investigation of a bank fraud case.
An FIR registered in 2003 alleged that certain accused persons had fraudulently obtained housing loans by using fabricated and forged sale agreements. During the course of investigation, the police sealed the aforesaid flats invoking Section 102 CrPC, despite the properties being immovable in nature .
Also Read MahaRERA Orders Recovery Warrant After 8-Year RERA Legal Battle
Builder Discharged From Criminal Case
Mr. Nitin Dhakan, a builder by profession, was initially shown as an accused. However, after investigation and consideration of the charge-sheet, the Sessions Court discharged him in 2008, finding no material to establish his involvement in the alleged fraud .
The prosecution case itself revealed that the actual fraud was committed by third parties, who had fabricated false documents and obtained loans from banks. It was specifically contended that:
- Mr. Dhakan had not participated in the fraudulent transactions
- No proceeds of crime were received by him
- Duplicate bank accounts were fraudulently opened in his name by the main accused
Despite his discharge, the sealed flats were not released.
Also Read Fit-Out Possession Without Completion Certificate is Illegal
Murder Of The Builder And Continued Sealing Of Property
In 2012, Mr. Nitin Dhakan was murdered. Thereafter, his widow and legal heirs made repeated attempts before the Sessions Court and the Magistrate seeking restoration of possession under Section 451 CrPC, contending that:
- The accused stood discharged
- The property was immovable
- Section 102 CrPC did not permit such seizure
These applications were rejected on technical grounds, resulting in the petitioner being deprived of possession of her property for over two decades .
Issue Before The High Court
The principal question before the High Court was:
Whether police authorities have the power under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to seize or attach immovable property without a court order?
High Court’s Observations
At the hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, conceded that the petition deserved to be allowed and stated that the Investigating Officer was willing to unseal the flats.
The Court noted that the writ petition specifically challenged the seizure of immovable property under Section 102 CrPC and that the legal position on the issue was well settled.
Operative Order
Allowing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court passed the following order:
“The Petition is allowed and disposed of.
The Investigating Officer shall unseal Flat Nos. 110 and 112 of the Petitioner sealed in Crime No. 257 of 2013.
All pending applications are disposed of.”
Significance Of The Ruling
The order reinforces the settled principle that:
- Section 102 CrPC does not extend to immovable property
- Police action in sealing immovable assets without judicial sanction is without authority of law
- Continued deprivation of property after discharge of the accused amounts to abuse of process
The judgment also highlights the serious consequences of prolonged investigative overreach, particularly where innocent legal heirs are compelled to litigate for decades to reclaim their property.
Counsel
The petitioner was represented by Adv. M.A. Khan, along with Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani, Adv. Sharon Fernandez and Adv. Mitali Nibre.
The State was represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by officers of the Economic Offences Wing.
Citation Details Click Here to Read and Download the Order
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: Justice Shivkumar Dige
Date: 21 January 2026
Case No: Criminal Writ Petition No. 3533 of 2019
The Law Suits,
413, Golden Chambers, Opp Tanishq Showroom,
Next to Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, LandMark CitiMall,
Andheri Link Road, Andheri West Mumbai 400053 +91 8928 372392
adv.Bhimani@gmail.com