Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Nilesh Ashok Lohar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Bombay HC
2026
Nilesh Ashok Lohar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.Nilesh Ashok Lohar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Disposed¶25

Nilesh Ashok Lohar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Mar 2026WP/4060/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction - Criminal Writ Petition No. 4060 of 2024, Dr. Nilesh Ashok Lohar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (coram: Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.; decided 01 April 2026). Consent quashing of order dated 28th March 2024 below Exhibit 6 in C.C. No. 841/PS/2014 (Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai) passed on an application filed by the victim/informant, held non-tenable; liberty reserved to the prosecution to seek production of documents afresh. Counsel: Tejas Muzumdar with Prajit S Manjarekar (petitioner); Sukanta Karmakar, APP (State); Prakhar Tandon with Aatish Tayade and Turuja Shedge, i/b Ravleen Sabharwal (Respondent No.3).

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28th March 2024 passed below Exhibit 6 in C.C. No. 841/PS/2014 quashed and set aside; prosecution given liberty to file an appropriate application for production of documents, to be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Why is it important?

In view of the concession made by the learned APP for the Respondent/State, the order impugned in the Petition is quashed and set aside. ¶21

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 28th March 2024 passed below Exhibit 6 in C.C. No. 841/PS/2014 quashed and set aside; prosecution given liberty to file an appropriate application for production of documents, to be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28th March 2024 passed below Exhibit 6 in C.C. No. 841/PS/2014 - passed on an application filed independently by the victim/informant rather than by the prosecution - should be quashed and set aside.

Court's answer

In view of the concession made by the learned APP for the Respondent/State, the order impugned in the Petition is quashed and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution is at liberty to file an appropriate application for production of documents; if such an application is filed, the learned Trial Court is to consider it on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition disposed of by consent: the order dated 28th March 2024 passed below Exhibit 6 in C.C. No. 841/PS/2014 pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai - passed on an application filed independently by the victim/informant rather than by the prosecution - was quashed and set aside after the APP for the State conceded, on instructions, that such an application would not be tenable. The prosecution was left at liberty to file an appropriate application for production of documents, which the Trial Court is to consider on its own merits and in accordance with law.

A

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2026.04.02 16:19:04 +0530

(905) WP-4060.24.DOCX

lgc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4060 OF 2024

Dr. Nilesh Ashok Lohar : Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents.

Mr.Tejas Muzumdar a/w Adv. Prajit S Manjarekar for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Prakhar Tandon a/w Mr. Aatish Tayade and Adv. Turuja Shedge i/by Mr. Ravleen Sabharwal for the Respondent No.3.

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATED : 01 APRIL 2026

PC:-

Heard Mr. Tejas Muzumdar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent/State and Mr. Prakhar Tandon, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.3.

By the present Petition, the Petitioner has sought for the following relief :-

“(b) That the records and proceedings in respect of C.C. No.841/PS/2014 pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai be called for from the Court of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra Mumbai, and after perusal

1

(905) WP-4060.24.DOCX

of the same and considering the propriety, legality and equity, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 28th March 2024 passed below Exhibit 6 in C.C. No. 841/PS/2014 pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.”

Mr. Tejas Muzumdar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that the Application on which the impugned order is passed was itself not maintainable as the same was not filed by the prosecution and was filed independently by the victim/informant.

Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent/State, on instructions, submits that the Application being filed by the victim/informant would not be tenable. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order in the present Petition be quashed by consent. He, however, requests for liberty to the prosecution to file appropriate application for production of documents before the Trial Court.

Mr. Tejas Muzumdar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, does not object to the said request made by Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, the learned APP for the Respondent/State and further fairly states that the prosecution is entitled to file application for production of documents, if permissible in terms of law.

In view of the concession made by Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, the learned APP for the Respondent/State, the order impugned in this Petition is quashed and set aside. The prosecution is at liberty to file an appropriate application for

2

(905) WP-4060.24.DOCX

production of documents. If such an application is filed , the learned Trial Court to consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Criminal Writ Petition No.4060 of 2024 is disposed of in the above terms.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

3

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order dated 28th March 2024 passed below Exhibit 6 in C.C. No. 841/PS/2014 - passed on an application filed independently by the victim/informant rather than by the prosecution - should be quashed and set aside.medium confidence¶18
The court held
In view of the concession made by the learned APP for the Respondent/State, the order impugned in the Petition is quashed and set aside.ratio¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 28th March 2024 passed below Exhibit 6 in C.C. No. 841/PS/2014, sought to be quashed and set aside.¶17
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai · 28th March 2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted that the application underlying the impugned order was not maintainable as it was filed independently by the victim/informant and not by the prosecution.¶18
Prior proceeding
APP for the State, on instructions, conceded that an application filed by the victim/informant would not be tenable and requested that the impugned order be quashed by consent, seeking liberty for the prosecution to file an appropriate application for production of documents before the Trial Court.¶19
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's counsel raised no objection to the APP's request and fairly stated that the prosecution is entitled to file an application for production of documents, if permissible in terms of law.¶20

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Dr. Nilesh Ashok Lohar¶6
Tejas Muzumdar, Prajit S Manjarekar
respondent
State of Maharashtra¶6
Sukanta Karmakar
respondent
Respondent No.3¶8
Prakhar Tandon, Aatish Tayade, Turuja Shedge, Ravleen Sabharwal

Coram

AI extract

ASHWIN D. BHOBEauthor¶9

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 18 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 23 Sept 2024
Case no.: WP/4060/2024
CNR: HCBM010431852024
Bench: Ashwin D. Bhobe
Disposal: Disposed Off
Case type: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION

All orders in this case

12 orders share this CNR

11 Nov 2024Order 1 · Ashwin D. Bhobe
2 Dec 2024Order 2 · Ashwin D. Bhobe
14 Jan 2025Order 3 · Ashwin D. Bhobe
28 Mar 2025Order 4 · Ashwin D. Bhobe
8 Apr 2025Order 5 · Ashwin D. Bhobe
6 May 2025Order 6 · Ashwin D. Bhobe
23 Jun 2025Order 7 · Ashwin D. Bhobe
22 Jan 2026Order 8 · Ashwin D. Bhobe
12 Mar 2026Order 9 · Ashwin D. Bhobe
18 Mar 2026Order 10 — this page · Ashwin D. Bhobe
27 Mar 2026Order 11 · Ashwin D. Bhobe
1 Apr 2026Order 12 · Ashwin D. Bhobe

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ashwin D. Bhobe

Popatrao Ramchandra Bhoi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.
17 Mar 2026
Shyamatbhai @ Sham Kabubhai Algotar @ Ahir and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.
17 Mar 2026
Fabiha Shadab Patel vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.
17 Mar 2026
Nitin Jiyalal Rajak and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra
18 Mar 2026
Mironov Anatoly Alexandrivich vs State of Maharashtra
18 Mar 2026
Paramjit Singh Tarlochan Singh Kalsi vs the State of Maharashtra
18 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

Nilesh Ashok Lohar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., WP/4060/2024 (BOM), decided on 18 March 2026.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history4

Order dated 28th March 2024 passed below Exhibit 6 in C.C. No. 841/PS/2014, sought to be quashed and set aside.Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai · 28th March 2024
Petitioner submitted that the application underlying the impugned order was not maintainable as it was filed independently by the victim/informant and not by the prosecution.
APP for the State, on instructions, conceded that an application filed by the victim/informant would not be tenable and requested that the impugned order be quashed by consent, seeking liberty for the prosecution to file an appropriate application for production of documents before the Trial Court.

View full history

Bench / Coram

ASHWIN D. BHOBE

Parties & counsel