Bombay High Court

GANESH HIRAMAN PIMPLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The Court held that because the petitioner has alternative civil and criminal remedies, the writ petition seeking quashment of the police order and police protection is dismissed.

Summary

Ganesh Hiraman Pimple filed a criminal writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 20.05.2026 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nanded, and to obtain a direction for police protection of his life and landed property. The Attorney General noted that a civil suit concerning the same matter was pending and that the petitioner's earlier application dated 21.01.2026 had been rejected by the Additional Superintendent of Police. The Court observed that the petitioner has adequate alternative remedies, including filing a civil suit for injunction and a private complaint before a Judicial Magistrate First Class, as well as a registered non‑cognizable case against the alleged harassers. Considering these available remedies, the Court declined to interfere with the police order. Consequently, the criminal writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ quashing the police order and directing police protection.
Whether the existence of alternative civil and criminal remedies bars the grant of relief in a writ petition.

Subjects

police protection
writ petition
alternative remedy
civil injunction
private complaint
Criminal Procedure Code
harassment

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37892-DB

                                                                           842.26WP

                                                 1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        942 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.842 OF 2026

                                 GANESH HIRAMAN PIMPLE
                                         VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

                                                   ...
                      Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr.Moinpasha Shaikh Farid
                           APP for Respondent-State : Mr.G.A.Kulkarni
                                                   …

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

                                       DATE     :    18.08.2026
                 P.C. :


                 1]           Heard. By way of this Petition, the petitioner is

                 seeking quashment of the order dated 20.05.2026 passed by

                 the Superintendent of Police, Nanded and also seeks

                 direction to provide adequate police protection to him.

                 However, the learned AGP placed on record communication

                 dated 15.08.2026 mentioning that one civil proceeding is

                 pending in respect of the subject matter and there were

                 vague allegations in the application dated 21.01.2026 of the

                 petitioner. Admittedly, the application of the petitioner dated

                 21.01.2026      has    been    rejected   by     the   Additional

                 Superintendent of Police, Nanded. However, it is in respect of
                                                          842.26WP

                                2

protection for the life of the petitioner as well as his landed

property.



2]          So far as protection of landed property of the

petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is having remedy for

filing civil suit for injunction before the concerned Civil Judge

Junior Division. Moreover, it appears that number of

applications are given by the petitioner for securing police

protection and taking action against the concerned persons.

One N.C. was also registered against those persons. However,

for life threats and allegation of theft of certain wood, the

petitioner has remedy to approach the concerned Court of

Judicial Magistrate First Class for filing private complaint.

Therefore, considering the alternate remedy which the

petitioner is having against the persons harassing him, we

are not inclined to grant any relief in this petition.

Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed.




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


DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…