Dismissed¶19

Prakash Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Jan 2026WP/111/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC dismisses Criminal Writ Petition No.111 of 2026 (Prakash Shetty v. State of Maharashtra) seeking FIR registration and departmental enquiry against DCP Avinash Ambure and IO Datta Sarak; complaint of 29.10.2025 deemed not to disclose ingredients of cognizable offence; adequate alternative statutory remedy cited against writ maintainability; non-impleadment of the two accused police officials noted; petitioner held to have no enforceable right in writ petition; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was held to be devoid of any merits and dismissed. ¶19

Prakash Shetty vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was held to be devoid of any merits and dismissed.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint dated 29 October 2025 discloses the ingredients of any cognizable offence against the two police officers so as to enable registration of an F.I.R. +3 more

¶17

Court's answer

After going through the complaint, the court formed the prima facie opinion that the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of any cognizable offence against the two police officers so as to enable the police to register the F.I.R.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Even if the petitioner thought otherwise, he would have adequate alternative statutory remedy in the matter; therefore, a writ petition on such grounds would not be maintainable.

¶17

Key takeaways

Although allegations were made against the two police officials, none of them was made a party in the writ petition.ratio¶17
From a careful analysis of the statements in the writ petition, the petitioner does not have any right that can be enforced in this writ petition.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram: Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar & Justice Suman Shyam, judgment per Suman Shyam, J., decided 19 January 2026 — Dismissed Criminal Writ Petition No.111 of 2026 filed by Prakash Shetty. The petitioner had submitted a written complaint dated 29 October 2025 to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, alleging wrongdoing by DCP Avinash Ambure and Investigating Officer Datta Sarak (APS, Crime Branch, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai and Virar) — namely investigation initiated without authority of law and the IO calling the complainant to narrate his business modalities — and, alleging inaction beyond mere recording of his statement, sought direction to initiate appropriate legal action including a departmental enquiry and registration of an F.I.R. The court held, prima facie, that the complaint disclosed no ingredients of any cognizable offence warranting an F.I.R.; that adequate alternative statutory remedy existed, making the writ petition unmaintainable on such grounds; that neither alleged official was impleaded as a party; and that the petitioner had no enforceable right in writ jurisdiction. Petition dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶1

7WP 111-26-CR.DOC

¶2

Priya Soparkar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.111 OF 2026

¶5

Prakash Shetty …Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. …Respondents

¶6

Mr. Prakash Dhopatkar with Ms. Vithika S. Vhatkar i/by Santosh Vhatkar & Associates, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. J. P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶8

CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & SUMAN SHYAM, J.

¶9

DATE: 19^th JANUARY 2026.

¶10

PC:- (Per Suman Shyam, J.)

¶11

The writ petitioner herein had submitted written complaint dated 29^th October 2025 before the Principal Secretary, Home Department, the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police making certain allegations against Mr.Avinash Ambure, DCP and Investigating Officer Mr.Datta Sarak, APS, Crime Branch of Mira-Bhayander, Vasai and Virar.

¶12

Alleging that on receipt of the complaint, save and except recording his statement, no further action has been taken in the matter by the authorities, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to initiate appropriate legal action including holding of a departmental enquiry and also for registration of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) against the two police officials of the department.

¶13

PRIYARAJESHSOPARKAR Digitallysigned byPRIYARAJESHSOPARKARDate:2026.02.0511:09:19+0530

¶14

Page 1 of 2 19^th January, 2026.

¶15

7WP 111-26-CR.DOC

¶16

From a perusal of the complaint dated 29^th October 2025, we find that the allegation made against the two police officials, namely, Mr. Avinash Ambure and Mr. Datta Sarak is to the effect that Mr. Avinash Ambure had initiated an investigation against him without the authority of law and the Investigating Officer-Mr. Datta Sarak had called the complainant for narrating the modalities of his business.

¶17

After going through the complaint, we are of the prima facie opinion that the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of any cognizable offence against the two police officers so as to enable the police to register the F.I.R. Even if the petitioner thinks so, he would have adequate alternative statutory remedy in the matter. Therefore, a writ petition would not be maintainable on such grounds. Moreover, although allegations have been made against the two police officials, yet, none of them has been made party in the writ petition.

¶18

From a careful analysis of the statements made in the writ petition, we are of the view that the petitioner does not have any right that can be enforced in this writ petition.

¶19

Writ Petition No.111 of 2026 is, therefore, held to be devoid of any merits. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

(SUMAN SHYAM, J.)

¶21

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶22

Page 2 of 2 19^th January, 2026.

Prakash Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trimurti Engineering through its sole proprietor vs Commissionerate of Police through Deputy Commisioner Hq

Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma vs National Investigation Agency

Rashid Khan Pathan vs Prashant Jadhav and Ors.

Jasleen Gurmeet Singh Batra vs Gurmeet Sing Surjit Singh Batra

Durg Vijay Sharma S/O Sewalal Sharma vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinesh Sadanand Sherla vs The State of Maharashtra