Disposed¶5

Mrs Maria W/O Cyrus Chang v. State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Gittikhadan Police Nagpur

Bombay HC9 Feb 2026WP/101/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition No.101/2026, Nagpur Bench; maintainability of writ petition; Article 226 Constitution of India unavailable for property-right disputes between private persons where general law remedies exist; Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2019)2 SCC 329 applied; petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceeding; Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur; bench of Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the criminal writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate proceeding. ¶5

Mrs Maria W/O Cyrus Chang vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Withdrawal of the criminal writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate proceeding.

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal writ petition is maintainable, given the settled position (per the Apex Court decision in Roshina T.) that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property right between private persons and Article 226 cannot be used where remedies under the general law, civil or criminal, are available.

¶3

Court's answer

In view of the Apex Court decision in Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019)2 SCC 329, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and expressed disinclination to entertain it, since property-right disputes between private persons are to be settled by regular suit and Article 226 is unavailable where general-law remedies exist.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate proceeding, and the Court disposed of the criminal writ petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench — Criminal Writ Petition No.101/2026, Mrs. Maria w/o Cyrus Chang v. The State of Maharashtra thr. PSO, Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur and ors (Urmila Joshi-Phalke & Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.; decision dated 16/04/2026). Relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019)2 SCC 329 — that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property right between private persons, and Article 226 of the Constitution is not available where remedies under the general law, civil or criminal, are available save for alleged violation of statutory duty by a statutory authority — the Court held the writ petition not maintainable and declined to entertain it. On instructions, counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw; the criminal writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate proceeding.

¶1

7 wp101.26

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.101/2026 Mrs.Maria w/o Cyrus Chang

¶5

..vs..

¶6

The State of Mah., thr.PSO, Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur and ors

¶7

............................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶8

Shri N.A.Lalwani, Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶9

Shri D.V.Chauhan, Public Prosecutor (Senior Counsel) assisted by Shri A.B.Badar, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶10

Shri Anand Jaiswal, Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs.Radhika Bajaj, Advocate for R-4.

¶11

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & NIVEDITA P.MEHTA, JJ . DATE : 16/04/2026

¶12

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶13

We have also considered the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and ors, reported in (2019)2 SCC 329 wherein it is specifically held that, “it has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property right between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which

.....2/-

7 wp101.26

remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available.”

¶18

In view of that, we have expressed that the writ petition is not maintainable and we have shown our disinclination to entertain the petition.

¶19

As such, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate proceeding.

¶20

The criminal writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for .

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

!! BrWankhede !!

¶23

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/04/2026 18:30:59

¶24

...../-

Mrs Maria W/O Cyrus Chang v. State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Gittikhadan Police Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Maria W/O Cyrus Chang v. State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Gittikhadan Police Nagpur

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivchand Pran Bansode vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary Department of Home Mantralaya Mumbai

Jaya D/O Janardhan Dhokare vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ps, Anji, Nagpur and Another

Dimple Kamlesh Kanungo vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Investing Officer

State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Police Station Darwha Dist Yavatmal vs Nandkishor Panjabrao Raut and Another

Viraj S/O Suhas Patil vs State of Maha Thr Director General of Police, and Others.

Anna S/O Dadarao Dandi vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Ministry of Rural Development Department Mantralaya Mumb