Disposed¶21

Tauseef Ahmed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2026WP/1795/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR — C.R. No. 110 of 2026, Narapoli Police Station — Sections 316(2) and 3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Petitioner not named in chargesheet filed by Respondent No. 1 — petition rendered infructuous — withdrawal permitted with liberty to pursue remedies if named in supplementary chargesheet — APP no objection — Bombay High Court, Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., 16 April 2026 — Tauseef Ahmed Khan v. State Of Maharashtra.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed, i.e., liberty to file appropriate proceedings as may be available in law if the Petitioner is subsequently named in a supplementary chargesheet. ¶21

Tauseef Ahmed Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

34.wp.1795.2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1795 OF 2026

¶4

Tauseef Ahmed Khan … Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra And Anr. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Pavan Ghatkar a/w Parimal Wagh, for the Petitioner through VC.

¶6

Mrs. Poonam Bhosale, APP for the Respondent – State. PSI Mahesh M. Naropli Police Station, is present.

¶7

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 16^th April, 2026.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

By the present Petition, the Petitioner has sought for the

¶10

following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (a):-

¶11

a) Quash and set aside the FIR bearing C. R. No. 110 of 2026 registered with Narapoli Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as the present Petitioner is concerned:

¶12

Mr. Parimal Wagh, learned Advocate for the Petitioner

¶13

appearing through VC states that upon investigation, the

Arjun

34.wp.1795.2026.doc

Respondent No. 1 has filed the chargesheet. He, on instructions from the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is not named in the chargesheet. He therefore submits that the present Petition is rendered infructuous. He however submits that in the event the Petitioner is subsequently named in the Supplementary chargesheet, then, leave be granted to the Petitioner to file appropriate proceedings as may be available in terms of law.

¶18

Mrs. Poonam Bhosale, learned APP for the Respondent –

¶19

State, does not object to the said request made by Mr. Parimal Wagh.

¶20

In view of the statement made by Mr. Parimal Wagh, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the no objection by Mrs. Poonam Bhosale, learned APP, leave is granted to withdraw the present Petition with liberty as prayed.

¶21

Criminal Application No. 1795 of 2026 is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.

¶22

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by ARJUN ARJUN KRISHNA KRISHNA RODGE RODGE Date:2026.04.21 11:08:21 +0530

¶24

Arjun

¶25

Tauseef Ahmed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tauseef Ahmed Khan 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Bhagwan Bali and Ors. vs Vijayalaxmi Amit Bali and Ors.

Shweta Rupesh Salvi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramrao Kisan Shinde vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Diya Harishchandra Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Yusuf Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kapil Arvind Pathak vs State of Maharashtra