Umesh Bhalchandra Vartak v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS
1 / 2 905-IA-1118-26-IN-WP-868-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1118 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.868 OF 2026 Umesh Balchandra Vartak .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.... Respondents .......
• Mr. R. B. Mokashi a/w Fauzan Shaikh, Advocate for Applicant. • Mr. Ashish Mehta, Advocate for Respondent No.4/SFIO. • Mr. Ashish Satpute, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM
: SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 08th APRIL, 2026 P.C. :
1.
Learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 has filed affidavit-in-reply mentioning the allegations against the Applicant. He invited our attention to the averments in paragraph No.8 of his affidavit-in-reply, wherein it is mentioned that the criminal complaint bearing Court Case No.102630/2024 is filed before the Special Court at Mumbai. MANUSHREE NESARIKAR The supplementary criminal complaint has also been filed in by MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date: 2026.04.09 12:41:32 +0530 those proceedings. The affidavit-in-reply goes on to mention the allegations against the Applicant.
Nesarikar
2 / 2 905-IA-1118-26-IN-WP-868-26.odt 2.
After going through the affidavit-in-reply we asked the learned counsel for the Applicant about the pending proceedings. He submitted that till today he has not been served with any summons in respect of those proceedings. 3.
However, since the Applicant is being served with the affidavit-in-reply in this Writ Petition, therefore, he is now aware of the pending proceedings.
4.
In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the Applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application and take appropriate steps in accordance with law to approach the Trial Court.
5.
Permission is granted. The application is allowed to be withdrawn with such liberty and is disposed of. 6.
It is made clear that we have not expressed our opinion on the merits of the matter.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)