Bombay High Court

BHIMRAJ YADAV BAGULversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court held that the petition is not maintainable as the appropriate remedy is to approach the concerned magistrate, and therefore disposed of the petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Bhimraj Yadav Bagul, filed a criminal writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking cognizance of a theft complaint dated 25 February 2022 concerning his farmhouse. The petition alleged that the appropriate legal action had not been taken against the alleged thieves. The Court examined whether a writ petition was the correct remedy or whether the petitioner should approach the magistrate with an application under the criminal procedure. It held that the appropriate remedy lay with filing an application before the concerned magistrate, not a writ petition. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the magistrate for redress in accordance with law.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal writ petition is maintainable for seeking cognizance of a theft complaint when an alternative remedy exists before a magistrate
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition in the circumstances

Subjects

theft
criminal writ petition
cognizance
magistrate
alternative remedy
high court
jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:44115-DB

                                                                      913 wp 572-22 .




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  913 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 572 OF 2022

                               BHIMRAJ YADAV BAGUL
                                        VERSUS
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                           ...
          Mr. Sagade B. G., Advocate for the Petitioner
          Mr. Rajdeep D.Raut, APP for Respondent-State
                                           ….

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

                                  Date         :   24/09/2026

          PER COURT :


          1.   Heard.
          2.   The petition appears to have been filed seeking cognizance of
          the complaint dated 25/02/2022 submitted by the petitioner in
          respect of the theft at his farmhouse.   However, an alternate remedy
          is available to the petitioner by way of filing an appropriate
          application before the concerned Magistrate.
          3.   In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of with
          liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate for
          redressal of his grievance, in accordance with law.




          [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]                   [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
                      JUDGE                               JUDGE




                VS Maind/                                          Page|1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…