Bombay High Court
TUSHAR RAMCHANDRA PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik, correctly declined jurisdiction, and therefore the impugned order stands.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonali Milind, filed a criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 9 June 2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik, which denied her request to de‑freeze a bank account. The magistrate had held that the account was frozen by the Cyberabad Police Station in Telangana, and therefore the jurisdiction to entertain the application lay with the court in Telangana. The petitioner failed to appear on multiple dates, and when counsel finally appeared, the matter was adjourned as a last chance, after which the petitioner again did not appear. The High Court examined whether the magistrate’s observation on jurisdiction was legally sound. Finding no merit in interfering with the lower court’s jurisdictional finding, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was upheld and no relief was granted to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik, had jurisdiction to entertain the application for de‑freezing the account.
- Whether the order dated 9 June 2025 denying de‑freezing of the account is legally valid and liable to be set aside by a writ under Articles 226/227.
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- Article 226
- Article 227
- account freezing
- cyber crime
- inter‑state jurisdiction
- writ petition
Judgment
5-WP-5349-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5349 OF 2025
Digitally
signed by Tushar Ramchandra Patil …Petitioner
SONALI
SONALI MILIND Versus
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
2026.10.06
18:39:07
+0530
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP, a/w. Mr. Shahaji Shinde, APP, B Panel,
for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 6th OCTOBER 2026
PC:-
1. In this Writ Petition, none appeared for the Petitioner on 17 th
October 2025 and 10th March 2026. On 1st October 2026, learned
Counsel appeared for the Petitioner and, at his request, the matter
was kept today as a last chance. Today, none appears for the
Petitioner.
2. By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of
the impugned order dated 9th June 2025 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik, in Criminal
Page 1
Sonali
5-WP-5349-2025.DOC
Miscellaneous Application No.660 of 2025. In the said application,
relief sought is seeking de-freezing of the account of the Applicant.
However, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, while
disposing of the application has observed that the account was
freezed by the Cyberabad Police Station, Telangana and therefore,
the concerned Court at Telangana will have jurisdiction. Thus, no
interference in the impugned order is warranted.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 2
Sonali
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.