Surinder Kumar Khosla, a co-accused in Birch nighclub fire tragedy case, has secured major relief in a nearly two-decade-old case involving allegations of forgery and cheating concerning properties bearing Survey Nos. 158/0 and 159/0 in the Village Panchayat of Arpora, where the ill-fated Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub was constructed.

The North Goa Additional Sessions Court has dismissed a criminal revision application filed by M/s Maizons Coastline Developers Pvt. Ltd., whose directors and shareholders include Pradip Pundalik Ghadi Amonkar and Sunil Dattaram Divkar, and upheld the trial court’s September 3, 2024, order discharging Khosla in a case involving alleged forgery and cheating over the management of Maizons Star Resort.

The Additional Sessions Court held that the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Mapusa, suffered from no illegality or infirmity warranting interference.

According to the case records, the developer company, whose directors and shareholders include Pradip Pundalik Ghadi Amonkar and Sunil Dattaram Divkar, developed Maizons Star Resort, comprising 107 units spread across 13 blocks. Of these, 83 units had been sold under a rent-back arrangement. On March 23, 2004, the developers entered into an agreement for sale with Khosla to transfer rights in the project area, while retaining the remaining 24 unsold units.

The relationship between the parties subsequently deteriorated, leading to multiple rounds of litigation, including a civil suit. The company later lodged a criminal complaint alleging that Khosla had forged a letter dated April 30, 2004. According to the company, the disputed document falsely represented that the developers had handed over full possession of the resort and its management to Khosla with effect from May 1, 2004. The company further alleged that the document was used to obtain regulatory approvals and mislead the authorities.

Following pre-charge inquiry proceedings, the Mapusa JMFC discharged Khosla on September 3, 2024. Challenging the order before the Sessions Court, the developer company argued that the magistrate had conducted an impermissible "mini-trial" and overlooked a handwriting expert’s report indicating that the disputed document did not bear the director’s signature.
However, the Sessions Court rejected the revision application, upholding the magistrate’s findings on several grounds. The court noted that director Sunil Divkar had admitted during cross-examination that no specific board resolution had authorised any director to file the criminal complaint. Although co-director Pradip Amonkar claimed that such a resolution existed, no supporting document was produced before the court.

Relying on settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, the Sessions Court observed that individual directors cannot institute criminal proceedings on behalf of a company without proper authorisation from its Board of Directors.

The complainant had also relied heavily on a forensic report stating that the disputed signatures did not belong to the directors. However, the court held that the report could not be admitted into evidence because its author had not been examined as a witness.

The Sessions Court ultimately concurred with the magistrate’s assessment that the dispute between the parties was essentially civil in nature, particularly in view of the civil suit already pending between them. It found that the allegations lacked sufficient substantiation of criminal elements to warrant the framing of charges against Khosla.