Bombay High Court

PRADEEP HUKUMCHAND CHUDIWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

The Court directed the Police Complaint Authority to decide the complaint within four months and disposed of the writ petition.

Summary

Petitioner Pradeep Hukumchand Chudiwal filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction that the Police Complaint Authority (PCA) under Section 22P of the Maharashtra Police Act expedite the hearing of his complaint. The petitioner’s counsel requested leave to add an additional prayer clause (H), which the Court granted. The State argued that the PCA had already issued notice and scheduled a hearing for 9 April 2026. The Court, noting the innocuous nature of the prayer, directed the PCA to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of the order. With this direction, the Court disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can direct the Police Complaint Authority to expedite the disposal of a complaint filed under Section 22P of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Police Act — s. 22P

Subjects

Police Complaint Authority
Section 22P
expeditious disposal
criminal writ petition
High Court of Bombay
procedural direction

Judgment

                             (1)
                                            925 Cri.WP-161.2026.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     925 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 161 OF 2026

           PRADEEP HUKUMCHAND CHUDIWAL
                          VERSUS
       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                             …
      Mr. Rohit Patwardhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
       Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
                             ...

                 CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                         ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

                 DATED : 24 MARCH 2026.

Oral order (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde, J.) :

1.   Heard. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner

seeks leave to add prayer clause (H).           Leave granted.

Amendment is to be carried out forthwith.

2.   Though the petitioner has put-forth multiple prayers,

however, he has restricted his prayer in respect of the added

prayer clause (H).

3.   Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has already approached Police Complaint Authority

constituted under Section 22P of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that pursuant to the

complaint filed by the petitioner, the Police Complaint

Authority has already issued notice and the matter is posted

for hearing on 09.04.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner
                               (2)
                                             925 Cri.WP-161.2026.odt
therefore submit that the proceedings pursuant to the

complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 22P of the

Maharashtra Police Act be directed to be expedited.

4.    Since an innocuous prayer has been made, we are

inclined to grant the same and direct Police Complaint

Authority to decide the complaint filed by the petitioner as

expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four

months from today in accordance with law and on it’s own

merits.

5.    With this direction, writ petition stands disposed of.




(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE)                 (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                                  JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…