Ravindra Shivaji Salunkhe vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ravindra Shivaji Salunkhe vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Magistrate's rejection of the petitioner-complainant's prayer to direct registration of the FIR and carry out investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, and his direction to the petitioner to proceed under Section 200 CrPC, was sustainable.

Court's answer

The Magistrate has options: to straightaway take cognizance of the offence and issue process; to postpone the issuance of process and conduct or cause to be conducted an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code; or to direct an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code.

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the complaint, the petitioner-complainant does not seem to have any title documents; the entire claim rests on allotment of land purportedly made by the then Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat and the assessment list maintained by the Village Panchayat.

Key takeaways

In the circumstances of the case, the exercise of discretion by the learned Magistrate in directing the complainant to proceed under Section 200 of the Code does not seem to be unsustainable.ratio¶19
Clarification: the aforesaid observations are confined to test the legality of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, who shall not be influenced by any of the observations while proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), N. J. Jamadar, J., dismissed Writ Petition No. 379 of 2026 challenging the order dated 05.11.2025 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, whereby the petitioner's revision application against the order dated 23.07.2024 of the learned Magistrate First Class, Panvel — rejecting his prayer to direct registration of the FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) and directing him to proceed under Section 200 CrPC — came to be dismissed. The Court observed that the Magistrate may straightaway take cognizance and issue process, postpone process and conduct/cause a Section 202 inquiry, or direct Section 156(3) investigation; since the complaint revolved around documents and the petitioner-complainant appeared to hold no title documents (his claim resting on allotment purportedly made by the then Sarpanch and the Village Panchayat assessment list), the Magistrate's exercise of discretion in directing the complainant to proceed under Section 200 did not seem unsustainable. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to testing the legality of the Magistrate's order and would not influence him while proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code.

4 WP 379-26.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 379 OF 2026

Ravindra Shivaji Salunkhe ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents

Mr. Gaurav Parkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. A R Metkari, APP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 06^th FEBRUARY 2026

P.C.:

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSHSUBHASH SUBHASH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date:2026.02.10 11:05:02 +0530

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 05^th November, 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, whereby a revision application preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 23^rd July, 2024 passed by the learned Magistrate First Class, Panvel, thereby rejecting the prayer to direct registration of the FIR and carry out investigation under Section 156(3) and instead directing the petitioner to proceed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came to be dismissed.

The learned Magistrate was of the view that, as the

complaint revolves around documents, a direction for

SAINATH

1/3

4 WP 379-26.DOC

investigation under Section 156(3) was not warranted, and, the complainant ought to proceed under Section 200 of the Code.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the allegations in the complaint are such that, investigation by the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code, is warranted.

I have perused the allegations in the complaint. The petitioner-complainant does not seem to have any title documents. The entire claim of the petitioner is based on the allotment of land purportedly made by the then Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, and the assessment list maintained by the Village Panchayat.

It is trite, the Magistrate has options to the either straightaway take cognizance of the offence and issue process, postpone the issuance of process and conduct or cause to be conducted an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code or direct an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. In the circumstances of the case, the exercise of discretion by the learned Magistrate in directing the complainant to proceed under Section 200 of the Code, does not seems to be unsustainable.

The Writ Petition thus stands dismissed.

2/3

SAINATH

4 WP 379-26.DOC

It is, however, clarified that, the aforesaid observations are confined to test the legality of the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate shall not be influenced by any of the observations while proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

3/3

SAINATH