Bombay High Court
SANJAY HARIRAM AGARWALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
The order dated 21 March 2025 framing charges against the petitioner is quashed and set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Hariram Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 21 March 2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 37th Court, which framed charges under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 114, 120B and 34. The petitioner argued that the facts were identical to those in Writ Petition No. 77 of 2026 (Sanjay Hariram Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra), and that the earlier decision should govern the present case. The State concurred that the same precedent applied and sought the same relief. By consent of the parties, the High Court quashed the impugned order and set aside the framed charges, directing the petitioner to appear before the magistrate on 7 May 2026 for a fresh framing of charge after a proper hearing. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the order framing charges on 21 March 2025 is valid in view of the earlier decision in Sanjay Hariram Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 77 of 2026).
- Whether the same factual matrix warrants quashing the charge‑framing order and directing a fresh hearing.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 114, 120B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- charge framing
- quash order
- Indian Penal Code
- precedent
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
921-WP-1747-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1747 OF 2026
Sanjay Hariram Agarwal … Petitioner
Versus.
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. … Respondents
-----
Mr. Pawan Mali a/w Yagni Sarvankar, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Poonam Bhosale, APP for the Respondent – State.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 30th April, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr. Pawan Mali, learned Advocate for the Petitioner
and Mrs. Poonam Bhosale, learned APP for Respondent No. 1. Mr.
Pawan Mali, learned Advocate, states that Respondent No. 2 is a
formal party to this Petition.
2. Mr. Pawan Mali, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, states
that the challenge in the present Petition is to the impugned order
dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, in C. C. No.
389/PW/2023 ordering the framing of charges under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 114 and 120B, read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. He states that the facts mentioned in the
present Petition are similar and identical to those in Writ Petition
Arjun 1
921-WP-1747-2026.doc
No. 77 of 2026, which was in respect of a connected case. He
submits that the decision of this Court in Sanjay Hariram Agarwal
v. The State Of Maharashtra and Anr. 1, squarely applies to the
present case, both in fact and in law. He therefore submits that this
Petition be allowed by applying the decision of this Court in Sanjay
Hariram Agarwal (Supra) to the case in hand. He states that the
criminal case bearing C. C. No. 389/PW/2023 is clubbed with
other cases referred to in the in the case of Sanjay Hariram
Agarwal (Supra).
3. Mrs. Poonam Bhosale, learned APP for the Respondent –
State, submits that the facts of this Petition are identical to those in
the case of Sanjay Hariram Agarwal (Supra). She therefore
submits that the decision in the case of Sanjay Hariram Agarwal
(Supra) would apply. She further submits that the impugned order
dated 21.03.2025 which framed the charge, be set aside and that
the course adopted in the case of Sanjay Hariram Agarwal (Supra)
be followed in this case.
1 Writ Petition No. 77 of 2026 decided on 13.01.2026.
Arjun 2
921-WP-1747-2026.doc
4. In view of the above and by consent of the parties, the
following order is made:-
a) Order dated 21.03.2025 impugned in this
Petition as well as the charge as framed against
the Petitioner, stand quashed and set aside.
b) Petitioner shall appear before the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 37th Court,
Esplanade, Mumbai on 07.05.2026
c) Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai shall
pas an order on framing of charge after providing
an effective opportunity of hearing to the
Prosecution and the Petitioner (Accused), in
accordance with law.
5. Mr. Pawan Mali, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
states that the Petitioner shall not seek an adjournment on
07.05.2026.
6. No order as to costs.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA Arjun 3
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.05.07
10:51:49
+0530
Checking your session…