Disposed¶25

Rahul Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2026WP/6683/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 6683 of 2025 (Rahul Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.), Bombay HC, Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., 07-01-2026: challenge to JMFC (Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai) order dated 01.12.2025 in C.C. No. 12/SW/2024 passed under S. 156(3) CrPC; on maintainability objection (revision before Sessions Court available), petition withdrawn with liberty to file Revision Application; contentions kept open; disposed as withdrawn; Article 226; no precedents engaged.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the Petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings as available in terms of law; all contentions of the parties kept open. ¶25

Rahul Kumar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

13-WP-6683-2025.doc

¶2

Digitally signed GAYATRI by GAYATRI RAJENDRA RAJENDRA SHIMPI SHIMPI Date: 2026.01.08 10:25:57 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6683 OF 2025

¶5

Rahul Kumar ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Rahul Agarwal a/w Mr. Aman arora i/b Rahul Agarwal & Associates, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for Respondent – State.

¶11

Mr. Dipak Thorat -PSI, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 7^th JANUARY, 2026

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

By the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought for the following substantive reliefs :-

¶16

“A. Pass necessary orders and direction thereby quashing and setting aside the Order dated 01 December 2025 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai in C.C. No. 12/SW/2024 (CNR:MHMM19-001060-2024);”

¶17

Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the State raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Petition on the ground that the order impugned in the present Petition is

Gayatri Shimpi

13-WP-6683-2025.doc

an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. She submits that a Revision Application before the Sessions Court would be maintainable.

¶22

Faced with the said objection, Mr. Rahul Agarwal, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, sought a pass over. After some time, at the request of Mr. Rahul Agarwal, the matter was taken up. Mr. Rahul Agarwal, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, on instructions of the Petitioner, craves leave to withdraw the present Petition to approach the Sessions Court having jurisdiction by filing a Revision Application, challenging the order dated 1^st December, 2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C.

¶23

Request made by Mr. Rahul Agarwal is not objected to by Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the State.

¶24

In view of the above, leave granted to withdraw this Petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings as available in terms of law. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶25

Criminal Writ Petition No.6683 of 2025 is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶26

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶27

¶28

Gayatri Shimpi

Rahul Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar 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

Similar cases

Nitin Yadav Jadhav and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raunakk Jaikishan Goklaney and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akash Dilip Shelar vs the State of Maharashtra, through Senior Inspector of Police

Mohammad Hasan Naushad Siddique vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhagirath Shriram Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra

Sayman@Papa Patric Manwel vs the State of Maharashtra