Ramakant Shivajirao Ghatge vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramakant Shivajirao Ghatge vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR already registered (No. 120/2025, dated 16 July 2025, Pusegaon Police Station, Satara); I.O. directed to carry out a proper and expeditious investigation strictly in accordance with law; District Superintendent of Police, Satara to obtain the S.H.O.'s explanation within 15 days and deal with the case per law; compliance report to be tendered before the Court on 10 November 2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the S.H.O., Pusegaon Police Station acted unlawfully in not registering an FIR on the Petitioner's complaint dated 14 May 2025, causing loss of valuable investigation time. +1 more

Court's answer

The Petitioner's prayer that an FIR be registered stands satisfied — the FIR has been registered.

Ratio / Principle

The Investigating Officer is directed to ensure that a proper and expeditious investigation is carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.

Key takeaways

The District Superintendent of Police, Satara is directed to call for an explanation from the S.H.O. responsible for not registering the FIR (to be sought within 15 days) and to deal with the case strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.ratio¶24
A compliance report is to be tendered before the Court on 10 November 2025.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), High Court of Judicature at Bombay — Ramakant S. Ghatge v. The State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner's complaint dated 14 May 2025 was not converted into an FIR by the S.H.O., Pusegaon Police Station (Satara) until the matter was listed before the Court; the learned APP informed the Court that FIR No. 120/2025 was registered belatedly on 16 July 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on Lalita Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2014(2) SSC 1], contending valuable investigation time was lost due to the S.H.O.'s apathy. The Court noted that the prayer for registration of an FIR stood satisfied, and directed: (i) the I.O. to ensure a proper and expeditious investigation strictly in accordance with law; (ii) the District Superintendent of Police, Satara to call for an explanation from the S.H.O. responsible for not registering the FIR within 15 days and deal with the case strictly per law; and (iii) a compliance report to be tendered before the Court on 10 November 2025. The Petition was disposed of. Footer stamps indicate the order was subsequently modified per the order Speaking to the Minutes dated 22 July 2025.

915 wp 3293-25.odt

LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE

Digitally signed by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2025.07.24 11:24:00 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3293 OF 2025

Ramakant S. Ghatge .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

Mr. Prashant Aher for the Petitioner.

Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATE: JULY 17, 2025

P. C.

This matter was on board on 14^th July, 2025 at serial No. 68 and

thereafter it was listed on this date.

The learned APP is instructed to inform the Court that an FIR on

the compliant of the Petitioner dated 14^th May, 2025 has been registered as

bearing No. 120/2025 on 16^th July, 2025 at Pusegaon Police Station, Satara.

Laxmi

This order is modified as per the order Speaking to the Minutes of the order dated 22^nd July, 2025. 1/3

915 wp 3293-25.odt

The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that valuable time for investigation has been lost only because of the apathy of the S.H.O. of the Pusegaon Police Station. The complaint was lodged on the date of the incident. Since 14^th May, 2025, the S.H.O. did not registered an FIR. After this matter was circulated, an FIR was registered belatedly on 16^th July, 2025. Reliance is placed on Lalita Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2014(2) SSC 1] .

The Petitioner had approached this Court with the prayer that an FIR be registered and the same has been done. However, we direct the I.O. to ensure that a proper and expeditious investigation shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.

We direct the District Superintendent of Police, Satara to call for an explanation from the S.H.O., who is responsible for not registering an FIR. Such explanation would be sought within a period of 15 days. After the explanation is tendered, the S.P. would deal with the case strictly in accordance

with the provisions of law. A compliance report be tendered before the Court

Laxmi

This order is modified as per the order Speaking to the Minutes of the order dated 22^nd July, 2025. 2/3

915 wp 3293-25.odt

on 10^th November, 2025.

With the above observations and directions, this Petition is

disposed off.

[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]

This order is modified as per the order Speaking to the Minutes of the order dated 22^nd July, 2025.

Laxmi

3/3