Fatu Madhu Shetgaonkar And ANR. v. M/S Turin Resort Private Ltd, Thr Its Authorized Person Mr Chottan Kumar Mandal And 7 ORS

70-WP-47-2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2026 Akshay Bhagwan Kamble ......Petitioner

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ......Respondents ----- Mr. Viraj Nalawade a/w Ms. Tanvi Lad, for Petitioner. Mr. Avinash A. Naik, AGP, for the Respondent-State. ----- Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date:

2026.02.12 12:05:30 +0530

CORAM

:

NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI & SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

DATE :

9th FEBRUARY, 2026.

P.C.

1.

By this petition, the Petitioner seeks direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur, to take proper cognizance of the complaint application given by the Petitioner on 16th December, 2025. The Petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. bearing Crime No.0725 of 2025 against one namely Vikas Shankar Dongale, Supervisor, for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS Act") and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging that the Petitioner's brother-in-law i.e. Kumar A. Kamble was working as a machine operator in the Shantanu S. Dhudum

70-WP-47-2026.DOC factory namely Menon and Menon Company, Vikram Nagar, Kolhapur. It is alleged that because his brother-in-law was accused of stealing the cellphone of his colleague, he has committed suicide by drinking the poison.

2.

It is the case of the Petitioner, that the Petitioner had informed the police authorities, names of four accused persons to be arraigned as accused, however, no cognizance was taken of his request. Hence, the present petition.

3.

Heard learned advocate for the Petitioner and learned APP for the Respondent - State.

4.

Learned APP, on instructions, submits that charge-sheet is filed in the present crime in January, 2026.

5.

Even, considering the allegations of the Petitioner, prima facie, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the Petitioner. No case is made out by the Petitioner to interfere in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

6.

The Writ Petition, is therefore, dismissed.

(AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum