Bombay High Court

TATYASAHEB S/O. UTTAM WALHEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed as the prayers for registration of crime, compensation, and quashment of the FIR do not survive.

Summary

The petitioner, Tatyasaheb, filed a criminal writ petition seeking registration of a crime against Assistant Police Inspector Mahesh Balasaheb Tak, quashment of FIR No.270/2018, and compensation. The High Court noted that the Principal District Judge, Beed had already examined the petitioner’s earlier application alleging atrocities and found no substance, advising the petitioner to lodge a private complaint, which he failed to do. Consequently, the Court held that the prayers for registration of crime and compensation could not be entertained. The Court also observed that the FIR had already led to a pending Sessions case (No.102/2021) against the petitioner, rendering the request to quash the FIR untenable. In view of these findings, the petition was disposed of without any relief.

Issues considered

Whether the Court can direct registration of a criminal case against a police officer when the petitioner has not filed a private complaint.
Whether compensation can be awarded in the absence of a substantiated claim.
Whether an FIR can be quashed when a criminal trial based on that FIR is already pending.

Subjects

Criminal Procedure Code
FIR quashment
Registration of crime
Compensation
Private complaint
Pending criminal case

Judgment

                               (1)
                                           914 Cri.WP-2106.2019.odt
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
      914 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2106 OF 2019

              TATYASAHEB S/O UTTAM WALHEKAR
                             VERSUS
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                  …
     Mr. Pankaj Kokane, Advocate holding for Mr. A.L. Kanade,
                    Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. R.D. Raut, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
                                  ...

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

                  DATED : 29 AUGUST 2026.

Per Court :

1.     Heard.

2.     Though the direction in this petition is sought by the

petitioner for registration of crime against the Assistant Police

Inspector, Shirur by name Mahesh Balasaheb Tak, however,

pursuant to his application dated 16.11.2018 about the

atrocities, the Principal District Judge, Beed had already

inquired the matter and found no substance. Further, the said

Principal District Judge also suggested the petitioner to lodge

private complaint against the police and liberty to that effect

was also given. However, the petitioner has not produced any

document on record to show that he has filed such complaint.

Under such circumstances, the directions sought under prayer

clauses ‘B’ and ‘D’ do not survive and resultantly no
                               (2)
                                           914 Cri.WP-2106.2019.odt
compensation as sought under prayer clause ‘C’ can be

granted at this juncture.

3.    Further, it appears that though the petitioner has sought

quashment of F.I.R. No.270/2018 of Shirur Police Station, but

the report dated 27.08.2026 of the Resource Personnel of this

Court indicates that pursuant to the said FIR, Sessions Case

No. 102/2021 is already going on filed against the present

petitioner and other accused and it is part-heard and the next

hearing date is kept on 11.09.2026.        As such, prayer of

quashment of F.I.R. also does not survive. In view of the same,

petition stands disposed of.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)              (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                 JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…