Pratima Prasanna Raskar And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.18495 OF 2024 Shalini Nilkanth Raskar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4577 OF 2024 Smt. Pratima Prasanna Raskar & Anr.
.. Applicants In the matter between Shalini Nilkanth Raskar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Respondents .....
Mr. Ibrahim Attar a/w Mr. Nikkhil Warange for the Petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Jagtap (through V.C.) a/W Mr. Sanket Khandagale i/b J. Shekhar Associates for the Intervener.
Mr. Pankaj P. Deokar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. .....
CORAM: MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 16th JUNE 2026 P.C.:- 1.
The present Petition is filed by the Petitioner inter alia praying for directions to the Respondents to consider certain complaints filed 1/3
by her, which are more specifically enumerated in the prayer clause. 2.
Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, the learned Counsel appearing for the Intervener opposes the present Petition. At this stage, we note that the Petitioner is not claiming any substantive rights and the only relief which he is claiming is to decide the complaints, which cannot be opposed either by A.P.P. or Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, especially, in the light of the fact that the Intervention Application is not yet decided. 3.
It would be proper course to ask the Respondents to consider and decide complaints preferred by the Petitioner, which are specifically mentioned in prayer clauses (a) and (a-1), on its own merits. Hence, we dispose of the Petition, by passing the following Order :- : O R D E R :
(i) The Respondents are directed to decide the complaints mentioned by the complainant in prayer clauses-(a) and (a-1), as expeditiously as possible. (ii) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter.
2/3
(iii) All contentions of all parties are kept open. (iv) Taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is senior citizen of more than 75 of years age, we direct the Respondents, to expedite the hearing of the complainant, which is to be concluded within three weeks from today.
(v) With these observations, the Petition is disposed of. (vi) In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives for consideration in the Interim Application. It is also disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) 3/3 RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.06.17 10:37:51 +0530 RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN