Partha Sarathy Sarkar vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Partha Sarathy Sarkar vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.1 should be directed to file a complaint with respondent no.4-CBI for registration of a First Information Report and carrying out investigation into offences committed by certain persons, as prayed for by the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

Since there are parties to the litigation who did not decide to lodge the First Information Report, the machinery of the criminal justice system cannot be put in motion at the instance of the petitioner merely on his claim of personal knowledge and information.

Ratio / Principle

A writ petition based on certain information possessed by a person cannot be entertained for issuing a direction for registration of a First Information Report.

Key takeaways

The proposition that the locus of a private individual is not alien to the criminal justice system and any person can move the Court primarily pertains to providing information to the law enforcement agency, which upon due inquiry and investigation may take a decision to lodge or not to lodge a First Information Report.ratio¶22
The petitioner's submission that the other Forums shall not have jurisdiction to make an inquiry in the matter does not appear to be in consonance with the powers of the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ. & Gautam A. Ankhad, J.; 27 March 2026): WRIT PETITION NO. 501 OF 2025 filed in person by Partha Sarathy Sarkar, an Advocate by profession and a Resolution Professional (Registration No.IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00239/2017-2018/10690), praying for a direction to respondent no.1 to file a complaint with respondent no.4-Central Bureau of Investigation for registration of a First Information Report and investigation into offences committed by certain persons, DISMISSED. The Court noted that a similar petition by one Rajendra Haribhau Dhanawade (Criminal Writ Petition (St.) No. 23457 of 2023) had been disposed of on 20th September 2024 with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Forum/Court, and held: (i) a writ petition based merely on certain information possessed by a person cannot be entertained for issuing a direction for registration of an FIR; (ii) there being parties to the litigation who did not decide to lodge the FIR, the machinery of the criminal justice system cannot be put in motion at the petitioner's instance on his claim of personal knowledge and information; (iii) the proposition that any person can move the Court primarily pertains to providing information to the law enforcement agency, which upon due inquiry and investigation may decide whether to lodge or not to lodge an FIR; and (iv) the petitioner's submission that the other Forums lack jurisdiction to inquire is not in consonance with the powers of the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

9-WP.501.2025.doc

JVS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Digitally signed by JAYANTVISHWANATH JAYANTVISHWANATHSALUNKE SALUNKE Date: 2026.04.04 18:29:10 +0530

WRIT PETITION NO. 501 OF 2025

Partha Sarathy Sarkar } Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors. } Respondents

Mr. Partha S. Sarkar, Petitioner In-Person.

Ms. Manisha Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Kuldeep Patil with Mr. Anay Joshi, Ms. Sanika Joshi, Mr. Sumitkumar Nimbalkar, Mr. Digvijay Kachare and Mr.Sahil Jodhwani, Advocate for Respondent No. 4-CBI.

Mr. Manan Sanghavi, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.

CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE: 27^th MARCH 2026

P.C.:

The petitioner in-person who is an Advocate by profession has made a prayer for a direction to the respondent no. 1 to file a complaint with the fourth respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, CBI) for registration of a First Information Report so that the investigation can be carried out into the offences committed by certain persons.

Mr. Manan Sanghavi, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 states that a similar petition was filed by one Rajendra Haribhau Dhanawade vide Criminal Writ Petition (St.) No. 23457 of 2023 which was disposed of by an order dated 20^th September 2024 with liberty to the said person to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Forum/Court. The petitioner was present before the Court, when the said order was passed.

Mr. Partha S. Sarkar, the petitioner appearing in-person states that he does not dispute the order dated 20^th September

1

9-WP.501.2025.doc

2024 in Criminal Writ Petition (St.) No. 23457 of 2023 but, according to him, the situation is a quite different here. He was duly appointed as Resolution Professional vide Registration No.IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00239/2017-2018/10690 and he has personal knowledge and information regarding certain persons.

On such facts we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition seeking a direction for registration of the First Information Report and investigation by the CBI. The petitioner himself has stated about the proceedings before different Forums. The submission made by the petitioner that such Forums shall not have the jurisdiction to make an inquiry in the matter does not appear to be in consonance with the powers of the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Moreover, writ petition like this based on certain information possessed by a person cannot be entertained for issuing a direction for registration of a First Information Report. There are parties to the litigation who did not decide to lodge the First Information Report. Therefore, at the instance of the petitioner claiming that he has personal knowledge and information, the machinery of criminal justice system cannot be put in motion. This is one thing to say that locus of a private individual is alien to the criminal justice system and any person can move the Court. However, that proposition, in our opinion, primarily pertains to providing information to the law enforcement agency which, upon due inquiry and investigation, may take a decision to lodge or not to lodge a First Information Report.

In view of the aforesaid, Criminal Writ Petition No. 501 of 2025 is dismissed.

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

2