Bombay High Court

NANDU DNYANDEV ARGADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed; the petitioner must approach the magistrate for a report under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.

Summary

The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction to the Inquiry Officer of Newasa Police Station to expedite the investigation and file an investigation report as ordered on 30 June 2023 in Criminal M.A. No. 245/2021. The Court observed that the concerned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case and, instead of directing registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., had called for a report from the police under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the Court held that the Magistrate, not the petitioner, should be approached to obtain the report under Section 202. The petition was therefore disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Magistrate for the report. The decision underscores the procedural requirement that a magistrate who has taken cognizance must itself call for the police report under Section 202.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition can compel the Inquiry Officer to file an investigation report when the magistrate has already taken cognizance and ordered a report under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 202

Subjects

Criminal Procedure
Section 202 CrPC
Section 156(3) CrPC
Investigation Report
Writ Petition
Magistrate Cognizance

Judgment

                                     (1)
                                                     924 Cri.WP-670.2026.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

      924 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 670 OF 2026

                NANDU DNYANDEV ARGADE
                       VERSUS
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Mr. Abhishek Hazare, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                    DATED       : 16th September, 2026

Per Court :

1.    Heard.

2.    The petition is filed for direction to respondent No.1, who

is the Inquiry Officer, Newasa Police Station, to expedite

investigation and file investigation report as per the order

dated 30.06.2023 in Criminal M.A. No. 245/2021 passed by

J.M.F.C. Newasa.

3.    On going through the aforesaid order, it clearly appears

that the petitioner was asking direction to conduct the

investigation after lodging FI.R., but it appears from the order

dated 30.06.2023 that the concerned Magistrate instead of

giving direction to register the F.I.R. under Section 156 (3) of

Cr.P.C., called report from the concerned Police Station under
                                 (2)
                                              924 Cri.WP-670.2026.odt
Section 202 of Cr.P.C.        The very action indicates that the

Magistrate has preferred to take cognizance of the case by

himself only. Therefore, when the Magistrate has decided to

call for report under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. then it was for him

to call the report from the concerned Inquiry Officer.

Therefore, we dispose of this petition with liberty to the

petitioner to file appropriate application before the concerned

Magistrate for calling report under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. in

this matter, expeditiously.



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




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…