The High Court of Bombay: Aurangabad Bench passed a judgement on 06 June 2023. In the case of SAGAR SURESH MUNDLIK AND ANOTHER Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.420 OF 2023 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE V. V. KANKANWADI and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE the judgment involves multiple petitions filed by the same parties, all arising from a common set of facts.


The judgment encompasses several petitions, including Writ Petition No.420 of 2023, which was initially filed for directions but later withdrawn by the petitioners. The remaining three petitions are Writ Petition No.266 of 2022, Criminal Application No.879 of 2023, and Criminal Application No.4436 of 2022.

Writ Petition No.266 of 2022 was filed by the original informant, who had lodged a FIR (First Information Report) with the Shirdi Police Station, seeking the transfer of the investigation to another agency and the addition of certain sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the FIR. Criminal Application No.879 of 2023 was filed by the same informant, requesting permission to present additional documents. Criminal Application No.4436 of 2022 was filed by the original accused, seeking the quashing of the FIR.


1) Indian Penal Code (IPC):

  1. Section 166: This section deals with the offense of a public servant disobeying the law with intent to cause injury to any person. The petitioner sought to add this section to the First Information Report (FIR) alleging misconduct by the police authorities. This indicates that the petitioner believes the police authorities acted in violation of the law with the intention to cause harm.
  2. Section 167: This section pertains to the offense of a public servant framing an incorrect document with the intent to cause injury. It is unclear from the given information how this section is specifically invoked in the case. However, it is possible that the petitioner sought to add this section to the FIR to accuse the police authorities of falsifying or fabricating evidence.

2) Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):

  1. Section 482: This section of the CrPC grants inherent powers to the High Court to quash any criminal proceedings if it deems necessary. In the given case, the accused relied on Section 482 to request the quashing of the FIR filed against them. This suggests that the accused believed there were grounds to argue that the FIR was baseless, and they sought the intervention of the High Court to dismiss the case.


During the proceedings, learned counsels representing the petitioners and respondents presented their arguments. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. D. Sapkal, instructed by Mr. Yuvraj S. Choudhari, advocated for the original informant, emphasizing that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner and his wife. He claimed that the accused had trespassed into the property, demolished a wall, and stolen articles worth Rs.67,000. The counsel alleged that the police authorities had not properly investigated the matter and sought the involvement of a different agency. They also requested the addition of sections 166 and 167 of the IPC to the FIR against the police authorities.

On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, instructed by Mr. R. C. Bora, represented the original accused. He argued that the informant’s wife had sold the property to the accused, and therefore, the accusations of theft and trespassing were baseless. The counsel pointed out that the possession of the stolen articles was with the accused and argued against their classification as thieves. They referred to various legal proceedings and documents to support their claims.


After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the judge analysed the sale deed and other relevant documents. They noted that the sale deed indicated that the property had been sold to the accused, and possession had been handed over. The judge also observed that the informant had not provided any documents to counter this claim. Based on this analysis, the judge found the accusations of theft and trespassing to be unsupported.

In light of the findings, the judge dismissed Criminal Application No.4436 of 2022, which sought the quashing of the FIR. The judge also disposed of Writ Petition No.420 of 2023, as it had been withdrawn by the petitioners. However, the judge did not provide a definitive decision on Writ Petition No.266 of 2022 and Criminal Application No.879 of 2023, which concerned the transfer of investigation and the addition of sections to the FIR. These matters may require further consideration.


This judgment showcases the complexities of a criminal case and property dispute. The judge carefully analysed the arguments presented by both sides and reached a decision based on the available evidence. While some petitions were disposed of or dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to view judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *