Bombay High Court

SOMNATH JALINDAR SHINDEversusTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is disposed of, with the petitioner directed to file a private complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate.

Summary

The petitioner, Somnath Jalindar Shinde, filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction for the police to take criminal action based on a representation he submitted on 15 March 2026. The police station examined the representation, summoned the petitioner for inquiry, and found contradictions between his representation and eye‑witness statements, yet proceeded to register a non‑cognizable (NC) report. The petitioner alleged grievance over the police action and asked the High Court to direct further investigation. The Court observed that the police had already considered the representation, conducted an inquiry, and that any further grievance could be addressed by filing a private complaint before the appropriate magistrate. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the magistrate with a private complaint.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can direct the police to register a criminal case (FIR) in a writ petition.
Whether the petitioner’s grievance about the police’s handling of his representation can be remedied by a private complaint before a magistrate.

Subjects

Criminal Procedure Code
Police Investigation
Non‑cognizable Report
Private Complaint
Writ Petition
Jurisdiction

Judgment

                                 (1)
                                              934- Cri. W. P. 614-2026.odt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2026

                SOMNATH JALINDAR SHINDE
                        VERSUS
        THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

                                  …..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shekade Shashikant E
APP for Respondents: Mr. S. J. Salgare
                                  ....

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

                  DATED :      SEPTEMBER 03, 2026

ORDER:-

1.    Though the learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking

direction for taking criminal action against the concerned persons

pursuant to the representation dated 15.03.2026, but the documents

annexed to the petition clearly indicate that his representation was

considered by the concerned Police Station and he was asked to

remain present for inquiry of the same vide notice dated 17.03.2026.



2.    Further, as per the letter dated 12.04.2026, it appears that the

concerned police Station had inquired into the representation dated

15.03.2026 and found that there was contradiction between the

contents of that representation and the statements of the eye

witnesses recorded by the Police State. However, it was found that the
                                   (2)
                                               934- Cri. W. P. 614-2026.odt
concerned Police Station by considering the contents of the

representation has directed to register NC report and accordingly the

representation was filed.



3.     If the petitioner is having any grievance about the action taken

by the concerned police station, then he may lodge a private

complaint before the concerned Magistrate.



4.     In view of the same, the petition stands disposed of with liberty

to the petitioner to file the private complaint as regards his grievance

before the concerned Judicial Magistrate.



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

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…