Bombay High Court

GANESH SAMPAT SHELARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is disposed without any direction because the grievance is already pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

Summary

The petitioner, Ganesh Sampat Shel ar, filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction to the State authorities to decide his representation dated 25 March 2021, alleging that he was omitted as the pillion rider in the accident that killed Rohit Rajendra Bagade on 8 August 2020. He claimed the deceased's father lodged the FIR falsely naming himself as the pillion rider to claim insurance compensation. The respondent argued that the petitioner approached the police only on 19 March 2021, after which his statement was recorded and placed in the charge‑sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and that the grievance is already pending before that magistrate. The Court held that because the matter is pending before the lower court, it would not issue any direction at this stage. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without any order directing the authorities.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can issue a direction to the investigating authorities to decide the petitioner's representation when the grievance is already pending before a Judicial Magistrate.

Subjects

criminal writ petition
representation
pillion rider
insurance compensation
jurisdiction
pending before magistrate
direction
High Court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39856-DB

                                                                          918 wp 674-21 .




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    918 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 674 OF 2021

                                  GANESH SAMPAT SHELAR
                                          VERSUS
                      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                             ...
          Ms. A. S. Kharade h/f Mr. Karpe Rahul R., Advocate for the Petitioner
          Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for Respondent-State
                                             ….

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

                                  Date         :   01/09/2026

          PER COURT :
          1.   Heard.


          2.   The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to
          decide his representation dated 25/03/2021. On perusal of the said
          representation, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is that he
          was not shown as the pillion rider accompanying the rider, Rohit
          Rajendra Bagade, who died in the accident dated 08/08/2020.


          3.   The petitioner claims that he was admitted to the hospital after
          the accident and that thereafter, the father of the deceased, Rohit
          lodged the FIR by projecting himself as the pillion rider instead of the
          petitioner, with an intention to grab the amount of compensation from
          the concerned insurance company.


          4.   However, learned APP, by pointing out the reply, submits that the
          petitioner did not approach the concerned police station immediately,

                  VS Maind/                                          Page|1
                                                                918 wp 674-21 .




but approached it only on 19/03/2021.         Thereafter, the concerned
Investigating Officer recorded his statement and placed the necessary
injury certificate before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
in the charge-sheet which had already been filed by that time. Thus,
the grievance raised by the petitioner is already pending before the
concerned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Learned counsel for the
petitioner is also not aware whether the said case is still pending or has
already been decided.


5.   Be that as it may, since the grievance of the petitioner is already
pending before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, we are
not inclined to issue any direction at this stage.       Accordingly, the
petition stands disposed of.




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




        VS Maind/                                          Page|2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…