Bombay High Court

SYED TAMKIN @ TAMMA S/O. SYED MATINversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: NEERAJ P DHOTE

Holding

The petition for quashing was dismissed as infructuous because the trial was already at the evidence stage.

Summary

The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition seeking to quash proceedings under several IPC offences (Sections 320, 364, 365, 201, 120-B read with 34) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. No counsel appeared for the petitioner, and the respondent’s counsel informed the court that the trial was already at the evidence stage. The court noted that the case was listed as ‘Evidence Part‑heard’ in the trial court records. Since the trial had progressed beyond the stage where a quash petition could be entertained, the petition was deemed infructuous. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition without any further order.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy when a petition for quashing criminal proceedings is filed after the trial has progressed to the evidence stage?

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B, 201, 320, 34, 364, 365
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act

Subjects

quash petition
criminal procedure
infructuous
evidence stage
MCOCA
IPC offences

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:23742-DB
                                                                          909.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                  909 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 153 OF 2019
                       Syed Tamkin @ Tamma S/o. Syed Matin
                                      VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra
                                         …..
          Ms. B. B. Gunjal, APP for Respondent – State
                                         …..
                                        CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                                         DATE         :   17.06.2026

          PER COURT :

          1.     None appeared for the Petitioner in the first half. Therefore,
          the Petition was kept in the second half. Even on the second call,
          none appeared for the Petitioner.

          2.     The learned APP for the Respondent - State submits that,
          the trial has already proceeded, and the case before the Trial Court
          is at the stage of ‘Evidence Part-heard’. She tenders across the bar
          the daily status of MCOCA Case No.20/2012, which shows the case
          status as ‘Evidence Part-heard’. The same is taken on record and
          marked as ‘Exhibit-1’ for identification.

          3.     This is the Petition for quashing the said criminal
          proceedings, which are registered for the offence punishable under
          Sections 320, 364, 365, 201 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the
          Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under the provisions of MCOCA.
          Since the trial has commenced and the stage is ‘Evidence Part-
          heard’, nothing survives in the Petition, and the same stands
          disposed of as having become infructuous.


                                                   [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]

          Sameer/June-2026                    1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…