Disposed¶23

Aniket Devram Gawade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Feb 2026WP/4562/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition challenging framing of charges under Sections 509 & 504 IPC (S.C.C. 68/2024, JMFC Ghodegaon, Pune); liberty to pursue Criminal Revision under Section 438 BNSS; Section 14 Indian Limitation Act 1963 time-exclusion; Bombay HC, Ashwin D. Bhobe J., 16.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a Criminal Revision Application under Section 438 BNSS with a condonation-of-delay application before the jurisdictional Sessions Court; conditional exclusion of time spent on this petition under Section 14, Indian Limitation Act, 1963, if filed within four weeks. ¶23

Aniket Devram Gawade vs the State of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 08.05.2024 framing charges in S.C.C. No. 68 of 2024 (offences under Sections 509 and 504 IPC) should be quashed and set aside under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution. +2 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Leave granted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a Criminal Revision Application under Section 438 BNSS, together with an application seeking condonation of delay, before the Sessions Court having jurisdiction.

¶21

Key takeaways

If the proposed Revision Application and the condonation-of-delay application are filed within four weeks, the Petitioner is entitled to exclusion of the time spent in pursuing this petition, in terms of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.) disposed of Writ Petition No. 4562 of 2024 as withdrawn on 16 February 2026. Petitioner Aniket Devram Gawade had sought quashing of the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghodegaon, Pune framing charges in C.C. No. S.C.C. 68 of 2024 for offences under Sections 509 and 504 IPC, invoking Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution. After the learned APP submitted that the charge-framing order is a revisable order against which a Criminal Revision Application under BNSS would be maintainable, counsel withdrew the petition with liberty to file a Criminal Revision Application under Section 438 BNSS with a condonation-of-delay application before the Sessions Court having jurisdiction; if filed within four weeks, the time spent pursuing the petition is to be excluded in terms of Section 14, Indian Limitation Act, 1963. The prosecution indicated it would request the Trial Court to defer the framing-of-charge hearing fixed for 17.02.2026 by two weeks.

¶1

69-WP-4562-2024.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4562 OF 2024

¶4

Aniket Devram Gawade … Petitioner V/s.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Anil G. Lalla a/w Rushil and Yash Pulekar, for the Petitioner. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

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

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

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

¶10

A) That this Honb'le Court be pleased to exercise its powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C r/w Article 227 of the constitution of India and be pleased to Quash and Set aside the Order passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ghodegaon, Pune of Framing Charges on 08.05.2024 in CC No. S.C.C. 68 of 2024 against the Petitioner for alleged commission of offences Punishable u/s 509 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and set the Petitioner at Liberty in this case.

¶11

Ms. Dabholkar, learned APP submits that the impugned

Arjun

69-WP-4562-2024.odt

order dated 8^th May, 2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Firs Class at Ghodegaon, Pune, in Criminal Case No. 68 of 2024 ordering to frame charge against the Applicant, is a revisable order against which a Criminal Revision Application under the provisions of BNSS would be maintainable. She therefore prays that this Petition be dismissed and the Petitioner be relegated to avail the remedy by way of Revision Application.

¶16

Faced with the said objection, Mr. Anil Lalla, learned Advocate for the Petitioner on instructions from the Petitioner craves leave to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to file Criminal Revision Application under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the Sessions Court.

¶17

Mr. Anil Lalla submits that the Criminal Revision Application is required to be filed at Khed, as such, he requests for time of 4 weeks. He submits that the Petitioner was prosecuting this Petition with due diligence and in good faith. As such, he prays that the time spent in this Petition be exempted. Request not objected to by Ms. Dabholkar, learned APP.

Arjun

69-WP-4562-2024.odt

In view of the statement made by Mr. Anil Lalla leave granted to withdraw this Petition with liberty to file Revision Application under Section 438 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, along with Application seeking condonation of delay before the Sessions Court having jurisdiction. If the proposed Revision Application along with an application seeking condonation of delay is filed within a period of 4 weeks from today, then the Petitioner would be entitled to exclusion of the time spent in pursuing this petition, in terms of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

¶22

Mr. Anil Lalla states that the matter before the Trial Court is listed tomorrow for framing charge. Ms. Dabholkar, learned APP submits that the Petitioner being granted time to file the Revision Application, the prosecution would request the Trial court to differ the hearing fixed tomorrow by a period of two weeks from 17^th February, 2026.

¶23

Writ Petition No. 4562 of 2024 is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶24

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶25

Arjun

¶26

Aniket Devram Gawade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniket Devram Gawade v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Sher Banu Asjad Karolia vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jayshree Rajesh Chougule vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagdish Ragho Parshe S/O Ragho Parshe vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manish Mohan Kasarkar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manish Eknath Morankar S/O Eknath Morankar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yuvraj Madhukar Dhondage vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.