Bombay High Court

SUDHIR BABURAO BIDWAIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to relief under the writ and must resort to Section 156(3) CrPC, dismissing the petition.

Summary

Sudhir Baburao Bidwai filed a criminal writ petition seeking to have A.P.I. Chincholkar added as an accused in Crime No. 416 of 2017. The High Court had earlier directed that the appropriate remedy was under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner failed to pursue that remedy and did not file any further application. On review, the Court found no basis to grant any relief and dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner may still initiate a separate proceeding under Section 156(3) if the limitation period allows. The pending intervention application was also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition can be used to add an intervenor as an accused in an ongoing criminal case.
Whether Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides the correct remedy for adding an accused.
Whether the petition is barred by limitation.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)

Subjects

criminal procedure
writ petition
addition of accused
Section 156(3) CrPC
limitation
intervention

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41748-DB

1 916 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 639 OF 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
916 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 639 OF 2021

SUDHIR BABURAO BIDWAI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Adv.Sahil Subhedar h/f Adv. Ghanekar Nilesh S., Advocate for the
Petitioner
Adv.G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondents-State
...

WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 523 OF 2022
IN WP/639/2021

OMKANT ANANDRAO CHINCHOLKAR
VERSUS
SUDHIR BABURAO BIDWAI AND OTHERS
…
Adv. S. R. Bagal h/f Adv. B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Applicant
Adv.G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondents-State
...

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

DATED : 09/09/2026
Per Court:

. Heard.

2. Though the learned counsel holding for Mr. Ghanekar seeks

time on the ground that the accused in Crime No. 416 of 2017 had

disclosed the name of Mr. Chincholkar, whom the petitioner wants

to add in the said aforesaid crime, however, under the order dated
2 916 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 639 OF 2021

02.11.2023, this Court had already made it clear that the

petitioner had remedy under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., if he wants

A.P.I. Chincholkar i.e. intervenor, to be added as an accused in the

aforesaid crime or the initiated separate criminal prosecution. The

records shows that, thereafter, the petitioner did not even circulate

the matter till today.

3. Be that as it may, when this Court was not of the opinion to

grant any relief to the petitioner under the order dated 02.11.2023,

we do not find any substance in this petition and the same stands

disposed of along with the pending intervention application.

4. It is made clear that, if the law of limitation permits, the

petitioner may file an appropriate proceeding for starting the

criminal prosecution against the intervenor.

Later on.

5. Adv. N. S. Ghanekar is appearing for the petitioner in

Criminal Writ Petition No. 639 of 2021.

( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )

shivani/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…