Disposed¶24

Shakuntala Narhari Nimje and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2025APL/1132/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interlocutory order granting leave to amend a Criminal Writ Petition to challenge a Magistrate's order taking cognizance; deletion of Article 226 reference from cause title; conversion of Writ Petition into suitable Criminal Application; placement before Single Judge Bench per orders in Crl. W.P. Nos. 2056 of 2025 and 3901 of 2021; Shakuntala Narhari Nimje v. State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court, 20/09/2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave to amend granted to enable challenge to the order taking cognizance; amendment to be carried out within three weeks; office to permit conversion of the Writ Petition into a suitable Criminal Application and to place the matter before an appropriate Single Judge Bench. ¶24

Shakuntala Narhari Nimje and Anr. vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners should be granted leave to amend the Writ Petition to (i) annex the order taking cognizance of the offence, (ii) add a prayer challenging that order, (iii) add relevant grounds, and (iv) delete the reference to Article 226 of the Constitution of India from the cause title, and to convert the matter into a suitable Criminal Application.

¶15

Court's answer

Leave to amend the Writ Petition for the stated purposes (annexing the cognizance order, adding the prayer challenging it and grounds, and deleting the Article 226 reference) is granted.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The amendment shall be carried out within three weeks; once carried out, the matter will no longer remain a Writ Petition, and the office shall permit the Petitioners' counsel to take steps to convert it into a suitable Criminal Application.

¶24

Key takeaways

After conversion, the matter would lie before a Single Judge Bench of this Court in view of the orders dated 09/09/2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2056 of 2025 and dated 11/09/2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No.3901 of 2021, and the office is to place the matter before an appropriate Single Judge Bench.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Sarang V. Kotwal & Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.), Criminal Writ Petition No. 4023 of 2025, decided 20 September 2025: On the learned APP pointing out that cognizance in the case had been taken by the learned Magistrate, the Petitioners' counsel sought leave to amend the Writ Petition to (i) annex the order taking cognizance, (ii) add a prayer challenging that order, (iii) add relevant grounds, and (iv) delete the reference to Article 226 of the Constitution of India from the cause title. Leave to amend was granted, to be carried out within three weeks. Once amended, the matter would cease to be a Writ Petition; the office was directed to permit conversion into a suitable Criminal Application, which would lie before a Single Judge Bench in view of the orders dated 09/09/2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2056 of 2025 and dated 11/09/2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No.3901 of 2021.

¶1

916-WP-4023-25.odt

¶2

1 / 2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4023 OF 2025

¶5

Shakuntala Narhari Nimje & Ors. .... Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

.... Respondents

¶9

Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶10

Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶11

Mr. Sunil M. Kelkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ. DATE : 20^th SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Learned APP pointed out that in this case cognizance is

¶15

taken by the learned Magistrate. In view of this statement, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that she will have to challenge the order of taking cognizance. She seeks leave to amend for the following purpose :

¶16

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2025.09.23 18:29:51 +0530

¶17

(i) To annex a copy of the order taking cognizance of the offence.

¶18

(ii) To add the prayer for challenging the order of taking cognizance.

¶19

Nesarikar

¶20

2 / 2 916-WP-4023-25.odt

¶21

(iii) To add relevant grounds in that behalf.

¶22

(iv) To delete the reference to article 226 of the Constitution of India from the cause title.

¶23

Leave to amend for that purpose is granted.

¶24

Amendment shall be carried out within a period of three weeks from today. Once the amendment is carried out, it will no longer remain a Writ Petition. Therefore, the office shall permit the learned counsel for the Petitioner to take steps to convert this Writ Petition into a suitable Criminal Application.

¶25

After it is so converted, the matter would lie before a Single Judge Bench of this Court in view of the order passed on 09/09/2025 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.2056 of 2025 and the order dated 11/09/2025 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.3901 of 2021. The office to place the matter before an appropriate Single Judge Bench.

¶26

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

¶27

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Shakuntala Narhari Nimje and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Narhari Nimje and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mangesh Baburao Savkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yogesh Madhukar Nikam vs State of Maharashtra

Govind Ramesh Kakade vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mangesh Baburao Savkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pratik Pruthviraj Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra vs Rajendra Govind Gurav