Umesh Ahok Patil v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS

30 WP 6050.25.DOC SAINATH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6050 OF 2025 Umesh Ashok Patil ..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Vivek M. Punjabi a/w Priyansh Jain, for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Malshe, APP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

11th DECEMBER 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2.

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 11th November, 2025 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, directed the parties to maintain status quo in Revision Application preferred by the Respondent No. 2 herein against an ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.12.12 15:34:38 +0530 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL order dated 24th October, 2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 164 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) thereby directing the Police Inspector, Taluka Police Station to hand over the possession of the subject premises to the petitioner by taking the same from Respondent No. 2 3.

The learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that, the said order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to 1/2

30 WP 6050.25.DOC the petitioner. The petitioner was not impleaded as a party respondent to the said revision application, when the said order came to be passed.

4.

The Court is informed that, the said revision application is listed before the learned Sessions Judge, tomorrow. 5.

Since the Sub Divisional Officer passed an order of delivery of possession of subject premises to the petitioner, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered it appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo till the hearing of the revision application, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not consider it expedient to intervene at this stage. Instead, the Revision Application itself be heard and decided expeditiously.

6.

The petition thus stands disposed with a request to learned Additional Sessions Judge seized with Revision Application No. 140/2025 to hear and decide the revision application as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of next listing of the revision application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 2/2