Avinash Madhukar Kondigrekar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

16-WP-2437-2025 (CR).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2437 OF 2025 Avinash Madhukar Kondigrekar

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra And Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Chaitanya S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Anand Subhash Shalgaonkar, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Rajendra Sanap, (P.I.), ACB, Kolhapur, present.

CORAM

:

NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE :

13th JANUARY 2026.

P.C.

1.

This Petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings in First Information Report (FIR) bearing C.R. No. 41 of 2025 registered at Gokul Shirgaon Police Station, District: Kolhapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) and Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2.

The Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR on four grounds. Firstly, his submission is that there is delay of five months in lodging the FIR. Secondly, a wrong description is given of the property, mutation entry of which was to be taken and that he has not by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:

2026.01.16 10:50:40 +0530 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR demanded the bribe amount and he has only nodded during the Sajakali Jamadar

16-WP-2437-2025 (CR).DOC telephonic conversation in respect of demand and, Sections 7 & 7A of the P.C. Act, 1988 are not made out.

3.

Learned APP on the other hand opposed the Petition stating that there is sufficient material collected during the course of investigation, showing the involvement of the Petitioner. 4.

On perusal of the papers of investigation, prima facie, the ingredients of Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 are made out in the present case. The conversation between Petitioner, Kotwal and the informant, prima facie shows the involvement of the Petitioner in the present crime. At this stage there is sufficient material to frame charge against applicant. It is for the prosecution to lead the evidence and prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt. 5.

In the light of above, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the Petitioner. The Writ Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Sajakali Jamadar