M/S. Shubhangi Constructions, through Its G.P.A. Holder, Ashok S/O. Dhondiba Damle v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Sept 2025WP/178/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Direction to lodge FIR refused; Article 226 writ not maintainable for non-registration of FIR; alternative remedy under Sections 154(3), 36 and 156(3) CrPC; Sakiri Vasu (2008) 2 SCC 409 relied on; M. Subramaniam (2020) 16 SCC 728 followed; liberty to approach Magistrate u/s 156(3) CrPC; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Cri.W.P. No.178 of 2020; disposed 25-09-2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC; no direction issued to the police to register the FIR. ¶¶33

M/S. Shubhangi Constructions, through Its G.P.A… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC; no direction issued to the police to register the FIR.

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise its powers under Article 226 to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to lodge an FIR on the petitioner's complaint dated 03.12.2019 and take action against the private respondents, or whether the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative statutory remedies.

¶¶23

Court's answer

In view of the specific observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu and the subsequent decisions, this was not a fit case for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; where the grievance is non-registration of an FIR, the petitioner must pursue the remedies of approaching the superior police officers (Sections 154(3) and 36 CrPC) and, failing that, the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC rather than rushing to the High Court.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the view in M. Subramaniam (supra), liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate of competent jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; if such an application is made, the concerned Magistrate is to decide it on its own merits.

¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench; Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.; order dt. 25.09.2025) by M/s Shubhangi Constructions seeking a direction to the Police Inspector, City Chowk P.S. and the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad to lodge an FIR on its complaint dated 03.12.2019 against private respondents. Relying on Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, and the line of cases including T.C. Thangaraj (2011) 12 SCC 328, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (2016) 6 SCC 227 and M. Subramaniam (2020) 16 SCC 728, the Court held it was not a fit case to exercise powers under Article 226 where the grievance is non-registration of an FIR; the petitioner was relegated to the remedies of approaching superior police officers (ss. 154(3) and 36 CrPC) and the Magistrate u/s 156(3) CrPC. Liberty was granted to move the competent Magistrate u/s 156(3) CrPC, any such application to be decided on its own merits. Petition disposed of.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:27461-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

53 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.178 OF 2020

¶4

M/s Shubhangi Constructions, Through it’s GPA Holder Ashok Dhondiba Damle, Age 43 yrs., Occ. Business & Service, R/o Ganpati Krupa, Plot No.94, Galli No.2, New Hanuman Nagar, Near N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

… Versus …

¶7

1 The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector, Police Station, City Chowk, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

¶8

2 The Commissioner of Police, Office of Police Commissioner, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marg, Mill Corner, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

¶9

3 Sartajsingh Arjunsingh Chahal, Age Major, Occ. Agri., R/o Plot No.8, MHADA Colony, Near house of former Mayor Smt. Kalatai Oza, Garkheda, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

¶10

4 Omprakash Bakoriya, Age Major, Occ. Service, R/o Directorate of Sports and Yough Affairs, Bund Garden, Pune.

¶11

¶12

53_Cri.WP_178_2020

¶13

5 Ashok Bhavani Padme, Age Major, Occ. Service, R/o Plot No.15, Nyayalayeen Housing, N-8, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 6 Narayan Pandurang Giri, Age Major, Occ. Service, R/o Plot No.32, C-Sector, N-4, in front of MIT Hospital, CIDCO, Aurangabad.

¶14

Mr. Amit S. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner

¶15

Mrs. Priya R. Bharaswadkar, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. Jay Veer, Advocate h/f Mrs. Anjali Dube, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. Aditya Lokhande, Advocate h/f Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶16

Mr. A.P. Nahar, Advocate h/f Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6

¶17

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 25^th SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶18

ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

¶19

Heard learned Advocate for petitioner. Present petition has been

¶20

¶21

53_Cri.WP_178_2020

¶22

filed for following relief -

¶23

“(B) That, the respondent No.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to lodge the First Information Report in view of complaint filed by the petitioner dated 03.12.2019 and to take action against the private respondents according to the law.”

¶24

2 It is stated that the complaint was made to the appropriate authority on 03.12.2019, however, no cognizance has been taken.

¶25

3 We would like to rely on the decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2008 (2) SCC 409, wherein it has been observed

¶26

that -

¶27

“25. we have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that the First Information Report has not been registered at a police station and/or an appropriate investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers and if that is of no avail, by approaching a Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3).

¶28

If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under

¶29

¶30

53_Cri.WP_178_2020

¶31

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies ?”

¶32

4 A decision in Sakiri Vasu (supra) was then relied in case of T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal & others [2011 (12) SCC 328], Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others [2016 (6) SCC 227] and M. Subramaniam and others vs. S. Janaki [2020 (16) SCC 728]. Therefore, in view of the specific observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not take this to be a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, the petitioner has remedy to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and we adopt the same view as was adopted in case of M. Subramaniam (supra) and grant liberty to the petitioner to approach learned Magistrate of competent jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If such application is made, then the concerned Magistrate to decide it on its own merits.

¶33

5 With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. )

¶35

( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

¶36

agd

M/S. Shubhangi Constructions, through Its G.P.A. Holder, Ashok S/O. Dhondiba Damle v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Shubhangi Constructions, through Its G.P.A. Holder, Ashok S/O. Dhondiba Damle v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Similar cases

Manik Ambadas Shimple and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Wasim Khan S/O. Sultan Khan and Others Vs the Police Inspector, City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad and Another

Aslam Shabbir Shaikh @ Bunty Jahagirdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Swati Ramkishan Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra through Principle Secretary and Others

Rajabai W/O. Kanthiram Rathod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sudhakar Bhavrao Dhatbale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others