Disposed¶21

Raju Rupsing Rathod and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2025WP/4848/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition under Article 226 for direction to lodge crime/FIR on complaint dated 05.05.2025 to Badlapur (E) Police Station, Thane; police declined cognizance treating dispute as civil (communication dated 22.05.2025); maintainability of Article 226 petition for lodgment of crime; alternative remedy by way of private complaint before jurisdictional Magistrate; M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728 followed; petition permitted to be withdrawn with liberty and disposed of as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the basis of the Petitioners' complaint dated 5th May, 2025. ¶21

Raju Rupsing Rathod and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the basis of the Petitioners' complaint dated 5th May, 2025.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking lodgment of crime on the basis of the Petitioners' complaint dated 5th May, 2025 is maintainable where the police authorities have not taken cognizance, and what remedy remains available.

¶14

Court's answer

Adopting the settled position reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for lodgment of crime is not maintainable; the Petitioners' remedy is to file a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

On instructions, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners sought leave to withdraw the Petition with liberty to file a private complaint on the basis of the complaint dated 5th May, 2025 before the jurisdictional Magistrate; leave and liberty were granted and the Petition was disposed of as withdrawn with the said liberty.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking lodgment of crime on the basis of the Petitioners' complaint dated 5th May, 2025 lodged with Badlapur (E) Police Station, District Thane, of which cognizance had not been taken; the police, upon inquiry, concluded the dispute to be of civil nature and communicated this to the Petitioners on 22nd May, 2025. Relying on the settled position reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Subramaniam & Anr. Vs. S. Janaki & Anr, (2020) 16 SCC 728, the Court observed that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for lodgment of crime is not maintainable and that the remedy available is to file a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners, on instructions, sought leave to withdraw the Petition with such liberty; leave and liberty were granted and the Petition was disposed of as withdrawn.

¶1

KSG 58-WP-4848-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4848 OF 2025

¶5

Raju Rupsing Rathod & Ors V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Mr. P.R. Rathod for Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Abhijit Y. Rajput, H.C. attached to Badlapur (E) Police Station, Thane.

¶11

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ. DATE : 17^th NOVEMBER, 2025

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

KIRAN SANJAY GHUGE Digitally signed by KIRAN SANJAYGHUGE Date: 2025.12.02 17:06:26 +0530

¶14

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for lodgment of crime on the basis of complaint dated 5^th May, 2025, submitted by the Petitioners with Badlapur (E) Police Station, District Thane, of which cognizance has not been taken by the concerned Police Authorities.

¶15

Record indicates that, the complaint dated 5^th May, 2025 was inquired into by the concerned police officer and he reached to the conclusion that, the dispute inter se between Petitioners and prospective accused persons is of civil nature. The said fact was communicated to the Petitioners by a communication dated 22^nd May, 2025.

¶16

1/2

¶17

KSG 58-WP-4848-2025.doc

¶18

It is by now the settled position of law and as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Subramaniam & Anr. Vs. S. Janaki & Anr reported in (2020) 16 SCC 728, that, Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for lodgment of crime is not maintainable, however the Petitioners are having remedy of filing a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶19

In view thereof, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, on instructions seeks leave to withdraw Petition with liberty to file a private complaint on the basis of their complaint dated 5^th May, 2025, before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶20

4.1) Leave and liberty granted.

¶21

1. Disposed off as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.

¶22

( RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

¶23

2/2

Raju Rupsing Rathod and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Rupsing Rathod and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Sahil Alias Bhavdya Santosh Kuchekar vs the Commissioner of Police, Pune and Ors.

Shahnawaz Abdul Kadar Qureshi vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Profectus Capital Private Limited vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sangita Nandu Toradmal vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Lakhan Uttam Chavan vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Sunil Vitthal Khandagale vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.