Bombay High Court
PRIYANKAR BIBHUTI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the FIR had become infructuous in view of the final appellate orders and therefore quashed it, allowing the petition.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to quash FIR No. II‑26/2015 dated 16 May 2015, arguing that earlier orders of the appellate authority dated 12 January 2016 had set aside the license/cancellation orders and rendered the FIR infructuous. The Court noted that the order dated 24 September 2014 had been set aside by the later 12 January 2016 order, which had attained finality and was not further challenged. Consequently, the FIR filed before those orders was deemed ineffective. The State’s counsel raised the absence of the original complainant, but the Court held that this issue was redundant given the FIR’s infructuous status. The Court therefore allowed the petition and ordered the FIR to be quashed and all related proceedings withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR filed prior to a final appellate order that set aside related license/cancellation orders can be quashed as infructuous.
- Whether the absence of the original complainant bars the quashing of the FIR.
Subjects
- FIR quash
- mandamus
- appellate authority
- infructuous FIR
- criminal procedure
- high court
- license cancellation
- complainant absence
Judgment
28. CRI WP-755-16.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 755 OF 2016
Priyankar Bibhuti & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Mohammad Shameer,
Ms. Chitra Rentala, Mr. Parikshith K., Ms. Aneeta Mathew and Mr.
Utkarsh Mishra, i/by Trilegal, Advocates for Petitioner Nos. 6 & 9
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for State
Mr. Wasim Shaikh, API, Turbhe MIDC Police Station
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 17, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard.
2. On 13.08.2026, this Court passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner Nos.6
and 9 and Ms. Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
2. In view of the order dated 24.09.2014 having been set aside
by a subsequent order dated 12.01.2016, the present matter deserves
to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:-
"a. For issuance of a writ of mandamus or such order
and/or direction in the nature of mandamus or such
other writ as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit for
quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR No.II-
26/2015 dated 16th May 2015 (Exhibit “I” hereto)
registered by Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.2
against the Petitioners; and for directing the Respondents
to withdraw all such proceedings which may have been
filed by either of them pursuant to and/or in
connection with FIR No.II-26/2015 dated 16th May
2015;”
3. By virtue of orders dated 20.07.2026 and 31.07.2026 the
prosecution was orally told to ascertain and verify the aforesaid
1 of 3
28. CRI WP-755-16.odt
position. Despite the aforesaid, the learned APP requests the Court to
keep the matter tomorrow to apprise the Court.
4. Stand over to 14th August, 2026. To be placed under the
caption ‘First on Board’ for passing appropriate order.
3. Reference in the aforesaid order is with regard to two orders
which have been passed subsequent to filing of the FIR on 16.05.2015.
By virtue of both the orders passed by the Appellate Authorities, the
license / cancellation orders were subsequently set aside by the
Appellate Authority by order dated 12.01.2016. Said order has not
been further challenged and has attained finality. In that view of the
matter, the FIR which was filed prior to passing of the said orders has
rendered itself infructuous. Hence there can be no further impediment
in quashing and setting aside the FIR and allowing the present Petition
in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Petition.
4. Learned APP, save and except, stating that the original
complainant who had filed the complaint is not before the Court has
not made any further submission. Learned APP would submit that in
view of the breach of conditions, the FIR was filed by the private
complainant. However the issue has become redundant in view of the
subsequent orders passed by the Appellate Authorities. This Court
cannot wait endlessly for the complainant to come to the Court
according to his convenience. Matter was earlier listed in last week.
Affidavit in reply has been filed by the original complainant pursuant
to service effected on him but he is not present when the matter is
2 of 3
28. CRI WP-755-16.odt
called out. I have seen the same. However, in view of the aforesaid
reasons, the entire FIR having been rendered infructuous, the Petition
stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
5. In view of the above, Petition is allowed and disposed in terms
of prayer clause (a).
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.08.17
20:58:39
+0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…