Dismissed¶21

Ashok Bajrangi Nirmal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2025WP/3133/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of investigation to Special Investigation Team; Article 226 extraordinary jurisdiction; power to transfer investigation to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances; credibility and public confidence; FIR No.355 of 2025, Santacruz Police Station; BNS 2023 sections 3(5), 118(1), 352, 109, 117; remedies under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 at appropriate stage; detailed inquiry within Trial Court jurisdiction; charge-sheet yet to be filed; main accused not arraigned; Bombay High Court Criminal Writ Petition No.3133 of 2025; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On examining the complaint, the Court found no material to justify transferring the investigation of FIR No.355 of 2025 to a Special Investigation Team. ¶17

Ashok Bajrangi Nirmal and Ors. vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the investigation of FIR No.355 of 2025 registered at Santacruz Police Station should be transferred to a Special Investigation Team. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

On examining the complaint, the Court found no material to justify transferring the investigation of FIR No.355 of 2025 to a Special Investigation Team.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The power to transfer an investigation must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, where such transfer is necessary to ensure credibility and inspire public confidence; otherwise SITs and agencies with limited resources would be overburdened.

¶21

Key takeaways

If the petitioners are aggrieved that certain persons have not been arraigned as accused or that particular sections have not been invoked in the FIR, it is open to them to avail of remedies at an appropriate stage under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; these issues require detailed inquiry, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.ratio¶21
No case was made out for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and Writ Petition No. 3133 of 2025 was accordingly dismissed.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Coram: Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ & Gautam A. Ankhad, J.; per Gautam A. Ankhad, J.) dismissed a Criminal Writ Petition (No.3133 of 2025, decided 25th September 2025) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking transfer of investigation of FIR No.355 of 2025 dated 18th April 2025 (sections 3(5), 118(1) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) from Santacruz Police Station to a Special Investigation Team. The petitioners alleged that the name of the main accused was not added by the Investigating Officer and that the accused had not been charged under sections 109 and 117 of the BNS. The Court held that the power to transfer an investigation must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, where such transfer is necessary to ensure credibility and inspire public confidence, lest SITs and agencies with limited resources be overburdened. On examining the complaint, the Court found no material to justify transfer: the incident occurred on 17th April 2025, the FIR was lodged promptly the very next day, and the charge-sheet was yet to be filed. Grievances as to non-arraignment of persons or non-invocation of particular sections could be pursued through remedies at an appropriate stage under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, such detailed inquiry falling within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. Finding no case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, the writ petition was dismissed.

¶1

BDP

¶2

71 crwp-3133-25.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3133 OF 2025

¶4

Mr. Ashok Bajrangi Nirmal ] Aged-52, Occ- Auto driver ] 2. Krishna Ashok Nirmal ] Aged-31, Occ: Private Service ] 3. Manisha Ashok Nirmal, ] Aged-28, Occ: Private Service, ] All resding at Room No.253/B, ] Indra Nagar, Juhu Tara Road, ] Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400054

¶5

] …. Petitioners.

¶6

V/s

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, ] at the instance of Santacruz Police ] Station. ] 2. Jaipal Chothiram Jaiswal, ] Aged- 50 years, Occ: Florist. ]

¶8

Jaipal Chothiram Jaiswal, ] Aged- 50 years, Occ: Florist. ] 3. Suraj Jaipal Jaiswal, ] Age 22 years, Occ: Florist ] 4. Akash Jaipal Jaiswal ] Aged- 20 Occ: Florist ] All the respondent nos.2 to 4 having ] residence address at Room No.252/A, ] Indra Nagar, Juhu Tara Road, ] Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054 ] 5. Suraj @ Pawan Mulekar, ] Aged-22 years, Occ: Not known ] having residence address at Indra ] Nagar, Juhu Tara Road, ] Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054 ] 6. Rohan Achelal Jaiswal ] Aged-21 Occ: Not known ] having residence address at Indra ] Nagar, Juhu Tara Road ] Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054 ]

¶9

¶10

BDP 71 crwp-3133-25.doc

¶11

Smt. Nirmala Jaiswal ] Aged-45, Occ: Housewife, ] having residence address at Indra ] Nagar, Juhu Tara Road, ] Santacurz (West), Mumbai-400054 ] ….Respondents.

¶12

Mr. Jitendra R. Gautam for the petitioners. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the respondent-State.

¶13

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶14

DATE : 25^TH SEPTEMBER 2025.

¶15

PER, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶16

The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking transfer of investigation in respect of FIR No.355 of 2025 dated 18^th April 2025 under sections 3(5), 118(1) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short, BNS) registered at Santacruz Police Station to a Special Investigation Team to investigate the offences. It is the petitioners’ case that the name of the main accused is not added by the Investigating Officer. It is further alleged that the Investigating Officer has not charged the accused under sections 109 and 117 of the BNS. It is in these circumstances that the petition has been filed.

¶17

We have heard Mr. Jitendra Gautam, learned advocate for the petitioners, and perused the record. The alleged incident took place on 17^th April 2025, while the present petition seeking transfer has been filed on 6^th June 2025. During the hearing, several queries were put to the learned advocate, to which no satisfactory response was forthcoming. Independent of that, on examining the complaint, we find no material to justify transferring the investigation to a Special Investigation Team. The FIR was lodged promptly, on the very next

BDP

71 crwp-3133-25.doc

day of the incident. We are informed that the charge-sheet is yet to be filed. It is well settled law that the power to transfer an investigation must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, where such transfer is necessary to ensure credibility and inspire public confidence. Otherwise, Special Investigating Teams and Agencies, with their limited resources, would be overburdened with a multitude of cases, making it impossible for them to effectively deal with truly serious matters. If the petitioners are aggrieved that certain persons have not been arraigned as accused or that particular sections have not been invoked in the FIR, it is open to them to avail of remedies at an appropriate stage under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. These issues require detailed inquiry, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. We therefore find no case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 3133 of 2025 stands dismissed.

¶22

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶23

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

¶24

Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2025.10.08 13:44:28 +0530

¶25

Ashok Bajrangi Nirmal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Bajrangi Nirmal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

K.K. Enterprises Peop. Kailash Narayan Kakde vs State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Principal Secretary

Narendra C Rathod vs State of Maharashtra

Partha Sarathy Sarkar vs Union of India

Jetspeed Logistics Private Limited vs Samrat Gems Impex Private Limited

Union of India vs Sanjay Tukaram Shende

Union of India and Ors. vs Dinesh H Prasad and Ors.