Dismissed¶17

Avinash Madhukar Kondigrekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2026WP/2437/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused; Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Sections 7, 7A, 12; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 Section 173; FIR C.R. No. 41 of 2025 Gokul Shirgaon Police Station Kolhapur; ACB Kolhapur; delay in lodging FIR; bribe demand; telephonic conversation; prima facie ingredients made out; sufficient material to frame charge; writ petition dismissed; Bombay High Court Kolhapur Circuit Bench; Nitin B. Suryawanshi; 13 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the papers of investigation, prima facie the ingredients of Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 are made out in the present case. ¶16

Avinash Madhukar Kondigrekar vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR (C.R. No. 41 of 2025) and the proceedings thereunder should be quashed on the Petitioner's grounds: five-month delay in lodging the FIR, wrong description of the property whose mutation entry was to be taken, absence of any demand of bribe by the Petitioner (who merely nodded during the telephonic conversation), and Sections 7 and 7A of the P.C. Act, 1988 not being made out.

¶10

Court's answer

On perusal of the papers of investigation, prima facie the ingredients of Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 are made out in the present case.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The conversation between the Petitioner, Kotwal and the informant prima facie shows the involvement of the Petitioner in the crime, and at this stage there is sufficient material to frame charge against the applicant.

¶16

Key takeaways

It is for the prosecution to lead the evidence and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.ratio¶16
In light of the above, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the Petitioner; the Writ Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of FIR C.R. No. 41 of 2025 registered at Gokul Shirgaon Police Station, Kolhapur, for offences under Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — dismissed. Grounds urged by the Petitioner (five-month delay in lodging the FIR, wrong description of the property whose mutation entry was to be taken, absence of any bribe demand by him, and Sections 7 and 7A of the P.C. Act not being made out) rejected at this stage: on perusal of the investigation papers the Court found the ingredients of Sections 7, 7A and 12 prima facie made out, the conversation between the Petitioner, Kotwal and the informant prima facie showing his involvement, and sufficient material at this stage to frame charge, it being for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Held not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the Petitioner; writ petition devoid of merits dismissed. (Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.)

¶1

¶2

16-WP-2437-2025 (CR).DOC

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2437 OF 2025

¶5

Avinash Madhukar Kondigrekar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Chaitanya S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Anand Subhash Shalgaonkar, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Rajendra Sanap, (P.I.), ACB, Kolhapur, present.

¶7

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. DATE : 13^th JANUARY 2026.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

This Petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings in First Information Report (FIR) bearing C.R. No. 41 of 2025 registered at Gokul Shirgaon Police Station, District: Kolhapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) and Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶10

The Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR on four grounds. Firstly, his submission is that there is delay of five months in lodging the FIR. Secondly, a wrong description is given of the property, mutation entry of which was to be taken and that he has not Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALILIYAKAT LIYAKATJAMADARDate: JAMADAR 2026.01.1610:50:40 demanded the bribe amount and he has only nodded during the +0530

¶11

Sajakali Jamadar

¶12

¶13

16-WP-2437-2025 (CR).DOC

¶14

telephonic conversation in respect of demand and, Sections 7 & 7A of the P.C. Act, 1988 are not made out.

¶15

Learned APP on the other hand opposed the Petition stating that there is sufficient material collected during the course of investigation, showing the involvement of the Petitioner.

¶16

On perusal of the papers of investigation, prima facie, the ingredients of Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 are made out in the present case. The conversation between Petitioner, Kotwal and the informant, prima facie shows the involvement of the Petitioner in the present crime. At this stage there is sufficient material to frame charge against applicant. It is for the prosecution to lead the evidence and prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶17

In the light of above, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the Petitioner. The Writ Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

¶18

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

¶19

Sajakali Jamadar

Avinash Madhukar Kondigrekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Madhukar Kondigrekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashish Satish Nikam vs State of Maharashtra

Suresh Jotiram Mhamane and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Social Welfare Dept. and Ors.

Anup Jingonda Patil vs the State of Information Commission and Others

Abdul Aabu Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Teyshil Shakil Darvajkar vs State of Maharashtra

Rameshwar Kisan Giri vs the State of Maharashtra