Bombay High Court

AVINASH EKNATH PAGIREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that no further relief could be granted as the FIR was already registered and a charge‑sheet filed, and thus dismissed the petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Avinash Eknath Pagire, filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR based on his complaint. The court noted that an FIR (Crime No. 342 of 2024) had already been registered at Rahuri Police Station for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, and a charge‑sheet had been filed. The petitioner contended that the FIR did not reflect his version of events but did not specifically pray for any amendment or re‑registration. Since the FIR was already in place and no specific relief was sought to alter it, the court declined to grant any further relief. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can direct the registration of an FIR when an FIR has already been registered in the matter.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 3
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302

Subjects

FIR registration
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code
Arms Act
Writ Petition
High Court
Petition disposal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:44082-DB

                                                                      918 wp 1044-23 .




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 918 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1044 OF 2023

                               AVINASH EKNATH PAGIRE
                                       VERSUS
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                          ...
          Mr. Pratik S. Khivansara h/f Mr. Ostwal Abhaykumar Dilip,
          Advocate for the Petitioner
          Mr. Rajdeep D. Raut, APP for Respondent-State
                                          ….

                                  CORAM        :   SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                   VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                  Date         :   24/09/2026

          PER COURT :


          1.   Though learned counsel, holding for Mr. Ostwal, sought time

          to obtain proper instructions, but upon perusal of the prayers made

          in the present petition, it appears that the petitioner is seeking a

          direction for registration of an FIR pursuant to his complaint.


          2.   However, it appears that an FIR has already been registered in

          the matter vide Crime No. 342 of 2024 at Rahuri Police Station for

          the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Sections 3

          and 25 of the Arms Act. Though it is contended by the petitioner

          that the FIR has not been registered in accordance with the version

          set out by him, but there is no specific prayer seeking any relief in

          that regard. In the circumstances, when the FIR has already been
                VS Maind/                                           Page|1
                                                       918 wp 1044-23 .




registered and the charge-sheet has also been filed, we are not

inclined to grant any further relief in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]                   [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
            JUDGE                               JUDGE




      VS Maind/                                      Page|2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…