Anil Uttam Nage v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 940 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 534 OF 2026 ANIL UTTAM NAGE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Z.H. Farooqui, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.S. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondents-State. ...

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATED : 5 MAY 2026.

Oral order (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde, J. ) :

1.

Heard. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put-forth the following prayers :

"B] Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, thereby directing the respondent No.2 and 3 forthwith lodged FIR/ criminal prosecution against the culprits/ offenders, on the basis of report/complaint submitted by the petitioner on 01.01.2026 with respondent No.3 the Police Station Officer, Rahuri Police Station, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahilyanagar and to take the investigation to its logical end for that purpose issue necessary orders.

(2) C] Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, thereby directing the respondent No.1 Secretary, Home Department, Maharashtra State to take necessary departmental action against the respondent No.2 and 3 for dereliction of duties and so also for deliberate inaction on their part in not lodging criminal prosecution against the culprits on the basis of report forwarded by the petitioner on 12.12.2025, 01.01.2026 and 24.02.2026, and for that purpose issue necessary orders".

2.

Today the learned A.P.P. has pointed out that F.I.R. bearing Crime No.456/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 119(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 189(1), 191(1) (2), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has already been registered and therefore so far as prayer clause (B) is concerned, the purpose of the said prayer clause has been subserved. As far as the grievance with regard to taking action against the erring police authorities is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under Section 22P of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. 3.

We find that since the purpose of filing of this writ petition to the extent of prayer clause (B) has been subserved, we dispose of this writ petition by granting liberty to the

(3) petitioner to make application/complaint before the concerned Authority constituted under Section 22P of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

In case the petitioner prefers application/complaint before such Authority, the Authority shall make an endeavour to decide the said application/complaint as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date on which the said application or complaint is made.

(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE VD_Dhirde