Disposed¶13

Kartik Ramesh Ashar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2025WP/1743/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court criminal writ petition 1743/2025 disposed without merits on jurisdiction ground; Chapter XVII Rule 18(4) Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules 1960; subject jurisdiction of Bench; petitioners directed to jurisdictional Single Judge; liberty to file fresh petition; Pant Nagar Police Station; State of Maharashtra; cognizance of offence recorded in draft amendment; rubber stamp cognizance orders; response sought from Principal District and Sessions Judge via Registry; coram Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Gautam A. Ankhad, J.; dated 13 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition before the jurisdictional Single Judge. ¶13

Kartik Ramesh Ashar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition before the jurisdictional Single Judge.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of Chapter XVII, Rule 18(4) of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 and the present subject jurisdiction of this Bench, the petitioners are required to approach the jurisdictional Single Judge instead of this Bench. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

In view of Chapter XVII, Rule 18(4) of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 and the present subject jurisdiction for this Bench, the petitioners are required to approach the jurisdictional Single Judge, and the Court grants them liberty to file a fresh petition for that purpose.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Writ Petition No.1743 of 2025 is disposed of without adverting to the merits of the matter, with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition.

¶13

Key takeaways

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned requiring a response from the Principal District and Sessions Judge as to how the rubber stamp cognizance orders are being passed.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ. and Gautam A. Ankhad, J.), 13 November 2025: Criminal Writ Petition No.1743 of 2025 (Kartik Ramesh Ashar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, through Pant Nagar Police Station and Anr.) disposed of without adverting to the merits. Holding that, in view of Chapter XVII, Rule 18(4) of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 and the present subject jurisdiction of the Bench, the petitioners were required to approach the jurisdictional Single Judge; liberty granted to file a fresh petition. Counsel tendered a draft amendment recording that the Court concerned had taken cognizance of the offence. The Registry was additionally directed to send a copy of the order to the Court concerned requiring a response from the Principal District and Sessions Judge as to how rubber stamp cognizance orders were being passed.

Kartik Ramesh Ashar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik Ramesh Ashar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharma Rajaram Vallakati vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Vikas Jaywantrao Shelke vs the State of Maharashtra

Rupeshkumar Ramsajivanlal Soni vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hi-Rock Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Corporation of Greater Mumbai Corporation

Abhijeet Rajendra Sangle vs Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Miralkumar Purushottam Gajjar and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.