Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

VIVEK MANGALA AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is dismissed as infructuous because the investigation report is pending before the appropriate court.

Summary

Vivek Mangala and another filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the quash of FIR C.R.No.I‑111 of 2014 registered at Kalwa Police Station, alleging that the FIR was illegal, null and void. The petitioners argued that the investigating agency had filed a ‘C’ Summary Report which was still pending before the competent court, rendering the petition infructuous. The State of Maharashtra, through its Assistant Public Prosecutor, did not oppose the petitioners' request to dismiss the petition on that ground. The learned Judge accepted the petitioners' submission that the matter was pending before another forum and consequently held that the writ petition could not proceed. The petition was therefore disposed of as infructuous.

Issues considered

  • What is the effect of a pending investigation report on the maintainability of a writ petition seeking quash of an FIR?
  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to set aside an FIR when the investigation is ongoing?

Subjects

  • mandamus
  • FIR quash
  • criminal procedure
  • pending investigation
  • infructuous petition

Judgment

                                                                                                   26-WP-1780-2014.doc


           Digitally signed
GAYATRI
           by GAYATRI
         RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA SHIMPI
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHIMPI   Date:
         2026.01.30
           20:10:25 +0530
                                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 1780 OF 2014

                              Vivek Mangala And Anr.                                      … Petitioners
                                       V/s.
                              The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                             … Respondents
                                                                       -------

                              Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal, Advocate for the Petitioners.
                              Mr. Prasanna Malshe, APP for Respondent – State.
                                                             ---

                                                                     CORAM :       ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
                                                                      DATE :       28th JANUARY, 2026.

                              P.C. :

                              1.               This Petition is listed under the caption ‘Prioritised

                              Cases’.



                              2.               By the present Petition, the Petitioners have sought for

                              the following substantive relief in prayer clause 24 (b) :-

                                               “(b)    Writ of Mandamus or at any other appropriate
                                               writ, order or direction in the like nature be issued
                                               thereby declaring the F.I.R. C.R.No.I-111 of 2014 dated
                                               13.02.2014 registered at Kalwa Police Station, Thane,
                                               arising out of the order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the
                                               learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 1 st Court, Thane
                                               in O. Μ. Α. No. 24 of 2014, as illegal, null and void and
                                               hence quashed and set aside.”



                              Gayatri shimpi                          1
                                                           26-WP-1780-2014.doc



3.               Mr.   Ganesh   Bhujbal,   learned   Advocate     for     the

Petitioners submits that the Respondent No. 1 upon investigation

has filed a ‘C’ Summary Report which is pending before the Court

having jurisdiction. He therefore submits that this Petition has

become infructuous, as such be disposed of.



4.               Mr. Prasanna Malshe, learned APP for the State does

not object to the request.



5.               In view of the statement made by Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal,

learned Advocate for the Petitioners, this Petition is disposed of as

infructuous.




                                           (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)




Gayatri shimpi                     2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.