Disposed¶29

Harshada Sharadchandra Desai v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2026WP/254/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; withdrawal of criminal writ petition; petitioner not named in charge-sheet; FIR C.R. No. 0900/2025 dated 27.11.2025, Parksite Police Station, Vikroli (West), Mumbai; Sections 281, 125(a), 125(b) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Section 184 Motor Vehicle Act 1988; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 528 BNSS 2023; Bombay High Court; Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.; disposed of as withdrawn; no ruling on merits; APP statement recorded; steps to remove petitioner's name.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the Petition; Writ Petition No. 254 of 2026 disposed of as withdrawn. The APP stated (on instructions) that appropriate steps as permissible in law and as required in law would be taken regarding the Petitioner's name in Crime No. 900 of 2025. No merits adjudication of the quashing prayer. ¶29

Harshada Sharadchandra Desai vs State of Maharashtra… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR bearing C.R. No. 0900/2025 dated 27.11.2025 registered at Parksite Police Station, Vikroli (West), Mumbai against the Petitioner under Sections 281, 125(a), 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ought to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

In view of the learned APP's statement that the Petitioner is not named in the charge-sheet, leave was granted to the Petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition. The quashing prayer itself was not adjudicated on merits.

¶26

Key takeaways

Writ Petition No. 254 of 2026 is disposed of as withdrawn.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Ashwin D. Bhobe, J. — Criminal Writ Petition No. 254 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 sought quashing of FIR C.R. No. 0900/2025 dated 27.11.2025 registered at Parksite Police Station, Vikroli (West), Mumbai against the Petitioner under Sections 281, 125(a), 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. On the return date (29.01.2026) the learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, stated that the Petitioner is not named in the charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 900 of 2025; thereupon leave to withdraw was granted and the Petition was disposed of as withdrawn, the APP stating that appropriate steps as permissible in law and as required in law would be taken regarding the Petitioner's name. The quashing prayer was not adjudicated on merits; no precedent was cited or considered.

¶1

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 2026.02.02 19:03:37 +0530 903.WP254.2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 254 OF 2026

¶5

Harshada Sharadchandra Desai. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.. … Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Shivraj Kunchge, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent/State. PSI Mr. Santosh Vijay Paradkar, Parksite Police Station.

¶7

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 29^th JANUARY, 2026.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

By the present Petition under Article 226 of the

¶10

Constitution of India, Petitioner has sought for the following substantive relief in terms of clause (A) :

¶11

A. That this Honourable Court exercising powers under article 226 of the constitution of India, 1950, and U/s. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, be pleased to quash and set aside, the First Information Report bearing C. R. No.0900/2025, dated 27.11.2025 registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 with the Parksite Police Station, Vikroli [W].

Talwalkar

903.WP254.2026.doc

Mumbai against the Petitioner U/s. 281, 125[a], 125[b] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.”

¶16

2. On 27^th January, 2026 following order was made :

¶17

Mr. Kunchge, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that the inclusion of the name of the Petitioner in the FIR is an error which is evident from the facts available before the Investigation Officer.

¶18

Mr. Karmakar, learned APP appearing for the State requests for time till 29th January, 2026 to obtain instructions from the Investigation Officer. At his request and by consent of Parties list this Petition on 29th January, 2026.

¶19

Today, Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for the State on

¶20

instructions from the Investigating Officer investigating Crime No. 900 of 2025 dated 27.11.2025 registered at Parksite Police Station, Vikroli (West), Mumbai states that the Petitioner is not named in the charge-sheet.

¶21

In view of the statement made by Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for the State, Mr. Shivraj Kunchge, learned Advocate for the Petitioner on instructions from the Petitioner craves leave to

¶22

withdraw this Petition.

Talwalkar

903.WP254.2026.doc

In view of the above, leave granted to withdraw the

¶27

present Petition.

¶28

Mr. Kuchange states that the Petitioner not being named in the charge-sheet, which is filed pursuant to the investigation in Crime No. 900 of 2025, he requests the Investigating Officer to take steps to remove the name of the Petitioner in the context of the Crime No. 900 of 2025. Mr. Karmakar, learned APP states that appropriate steps as permissible in law and as required in law will be taken.

¶29

Writ Petition No. 254 of 2026 is disposed of as

¶30

withdrawn.

¶31

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶32

¶33

Talwalkar

Harshada Sharadchandra Desai v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshada Sharadchandra Desai 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

George Mathen vs State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ashok Pawar and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishesh Balbir Verma and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sumit Surajsingh Kagda vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anton Nazarov Thr His Natural Guardian and Next Friend Petitioner NO.2 and 2 Ors. vs the Union of India Thr the Secretary and 7 Ors.

Anil Ramparikar Tiwari vs Senior Inspector of Police and Anr.