Bombay High Court
CHHAYA JITENDRA MOHITEversusSR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE VAKOLA POLICE STATION AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to compel the police to treat a civil dispute as a cognizable offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Chhaya Jitendra Mohite, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Senior Inspector of Police to withdraw a communication dated 11 December 2020, which had directed her to approach a civil court because her complaint was deemed non‑cognizable and civil in nature. The High Court observed that the police had already investigated the complaint and concluded it was civil, and therefore the court would not interfere with the police’s communication. It held that the petition was misconceived, noting that the petitioner had an alternative remedy and that invoking writ jurisdiction to compel the lodging of a criminal case is impermissible, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ under Article 226 can be issued to direct the police to withdraw a communication directing a complainant to a civil court for a non‑cognizable complaint.
- Whether the petitioner’s alternative remedy and the Supreme Court precedent preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction in this context.
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ jurisdiction
- cognizable offence
- civil complaint
- police communication
- alternative remedy
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
sbw 2-wp-50-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.50 OF 2021
Chhaya Jitendra Mohite … Petitioner
V/s.
Sr. Inspector of Police,
Vakola Police Station & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Pradeep Havnur for the Petitioner.
Smt. Madhavi H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Shraddha Kadam i/by Mr. Kishan Chaudhari for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATE : 7th September, 2026
P.C.:-
1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioner is seeking a direction to the Senior Inspector of Police, Vakola
Police Station, to withdraw communication dated 11 th December, 2020
issued by the Assistant Police Inspector.
2) By the said communication, the concerned Police Officer has
directed the Petitioner to approach Civil Court because, according to him
the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence and the said dispute
is civil in nature.
SANDHYA
BHAGU
WADHWA 1/2
Digitally signed by
SANDHYA BHAGU
WADHWA
Date: 2026.09.16
15:22:51 +0530
sbw 2-wp-50-2021.doc
3) As the Police have already enquired into the complaint lodged
by the Petitioner and have reached the conclusion that it is civil in nature
and that it requires adjudication by a Civil Court, we are not inclined to
interfere with the said communication.
4) According to us, the Petition is wholly misconceived.
5) Though the Petitioner was and is having an alternate remedy,
the Petitioner has approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia for lodgment of crime,
which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798.
6) Petition is accordingly disposed off.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
2/2
Checking your session…