Rohit S/O Mangu Korsa v. State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Aheri Dist.Gadchiroli Mah. And Another

2025:BHC-NAG:13108-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4 OF 2024 [Rohit Mangu Korsa vs. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli and anr.] with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 884 OF 2023 [Biplav Gitish Sikdar vs. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli and anr.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Tarun C. Parmar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the State/respondent no. 1 CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

DATE : 27-11-2025.

Heard.

2.

The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing First Information Report (FIR).

3.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submits that 'A' summary has been filed. It appears that FIR was lodged under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that sanction to prosecute petitioners has been rejected and, therefore, FIR will have to be quashed.

5.

Learned APP has shown us across the bar order dated 25-11-2025 passed below Exhibit 1 by the Sessions Court, Aheri in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 41/2024. The Sessions Court has taken cognizance of 'A' summary. It has issued notice to informant. In response, informant i.e. Assistant Police Inspector appeared before the Court and gave no objection to the proceedings. The trial Court then took note of the fact that an amount of Rs. 27,68,000/- was seized in connection with the offence and it was deposited with Police Station, Aheri. The Sessions Court was of the view that while deciding 'A' summary report, it will have to pass order regarding the seized amount. Accordingly, the Court issued notice to the petitioners to show cause why order should not be passed in respect of seized amount and whether they accept the amount was seized from them and whether they claim the said amount to be owned by them and are entitled to get back the amount.

6.

Learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer Mr. Ajay Kokate, who is present in Court, submits that sanction has been refused for lack of evidence. He submits that since huge amount was recovered from the petitioners, 'A' summary has been filed. Thus, the investigating agency is hopeful of collecting evidence to approach sanctioning authority afresh.

7.

That being so, the argument that since sanction is refused, the FIR will have to be quashed is without substance. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.

(JUDGE) (JUDGE.) wasnik