Linkhouse Industries Ltd Thr Its Director Shri. Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani v. State Of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Nandanvan Police Station, Nagpur

2026:BHC-NAG:1432-DB 33-WP-914-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 914 OF 2025 (Linkhouse Industries Limited, through its Director & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. G.S. Gour, Counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent nos. 1 and 2/State. Mr. Virat Mishra, Counsel for respondent no.4. .....

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

JANUARY 29, 2026 The Counsel for the petitioners seeks time to file additional affidavit in compliance of order dated 19/1/2026.

2] The Counsel for respondent no.4 has invited our attention to the statement made by him as recorded in paragraph 6 of our order dated 19/1/2026. The statement reads as under :

"6. ..... The petitioners have made respondent No.4 as party respondent in the appeal saying that respondent No.4 has purchased the property under question as also about his possession......"

3] On the basis of the aforesaid statement, we have drawn an inference that the petitioners were aware of the fact that respondent no.4 has purchased the property under question, and was, in fact, in possession. We have further said that the petitioners have suppressed these facts. Accordingly, the petitioners were called upon to answer these allegations. The petitioners were also directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- to show their bona fides.

33-WP-914-2025 4] The Counsel for respondent no.4 submits that the aforesaid statement was inadvertently made. He submits that in the appeal preferred by the petitioners before this Court, respondent no.4 had instructed the Counsel to file an application for intervention disclosing all these facts. The Counsel thought that this plea had been taken by the petitioners in the appeal, and accordingly, made statement as noted in the order. 5] Thus, it is apparent that the Counsel for respondent no.4 made an incorrect statement may be because respondent no.4 has briefed him accordingly. We will consider the effect of such statement in due course. 6] In the circumstances, the petitioners need not file additional affidavit, as directed by us vide order dated 19/1/2026.

7] At this stage, the Counsel for the petitioners submits that the First Information Report has been lodged against respondent no.4. He submits that this development will redress its grievance to a certain extent. Accordingly, and on instructions, he seeks permission to withdraw the petition.

8] Permission is granted. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. The Registry shall refund, to the petitioners, amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by them. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 29/01/2026 18:02:58