Bombay High Court
AMIT DANGIversusUNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed To be withdrawn
Holding
The petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to approach an appropriate court in Delhi, without any determination on the merits.
Summary
Petitioners Sanjay Dangi and another filed a criminal writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking relief against the Union of India and other respondents. The respondents, particularly Respondent No.3, argued that the appropriate forum for the relief was a competent court in Delhi, raising a jurisdictional issue. The petitioners sought permission to withdraw the petition and approach the Delhi court. The Court, after noting the jurisdictional argument, granted permission to withdraw the petition, emphasizing that it made no observations on the merits and left all substantive questions open. Consequently, the petition was withdrawn and disposed, and the connected interim applications were also disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the relief sought in the criminal writ petition.
- Whether the petition should be withdrawn in favour of filing the suit in a Delhi court.
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- forum non conveniens
- withdrawal of petition
- criminal writ petition
- procedural law
- high court
Judgment
Gokhale 1 of 3 908-ia-2860-26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 10037 OF 2026
Sanjay Dangi & Anr. ..Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2860 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2861 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 10037 OF 2026
__________
Mr. Vikram Nankani, Sr. Advocate a/w. Dr. Yusuf Iqbal Yusuf, Ms.
Vasudha Gupta, Ms. Antara Kulkarni, Samruddhi Bendbhar, Jayesh
More and Karan Kadam i/b. Parinam Law Associates for
Petitioners/Applicants.
Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for State/Respondent.
Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2/UOI.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Counsel (through V.C.) a/w. Pranjal Tripathi
i/b. Anil Yadav for Respondent No.3/ED.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 20 AUGUST 2026
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2026.08.20
17:55:17
+0530
2 of 3 908-ia-2860-26
PC :
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for both the sides
extensively. On maintainability of the petition, learned senior
counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 states that the
appropriate court to seek the relief sought in this petition would be
a competent appropriate court in Delhi. He submits that, if the
Petition is allowed to be withdrawn and if the Petitioners approach
an appropriate Court in Delhi, then the Respondent No.3 shall not
raise the point of jurisdiction in respect of the relief claimed in this
petition. This statement is recorded and accepted.
2. Based on this statement, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this
petition with liberty to approach an appropriate Court in Delhi for
the reliefs which are claimed in this petition.
3. Permission is granted. The petition is allowed to be
withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. It is made clear that, we have
not made any observations on the merits of the matter. All the
questions raised in this petition are specifically left open.
3 of 3 908-ia-2860-26
4. With this observation, the petition is allowed to be
withdrawn with such liberty and is disposed of.
5. The connected interim applications are also disposed of.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Checking your session…