Bombay High Court
Ali Raja Jawar Hussain Saiyyad @ Babu ... vs Vinod Sudam Jadhav And Anr on 10 November, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AS:47591-DB
12_WP3542_13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3542 OF 2013
Ali Raja Jawar Hussain Saiyyad @ Babu
Kothamire and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
Vinod Sudam Jadhav and another ... Respondents
Mr. Akshay Dingale i/b. Mr. Tapan Thatte for Petitioners.
Ms. Sangita Phad, APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 10, 2025
P.C. :
. This petition was taken up for consideration on 03.11.2025 when
there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners. Today, when the
petition is called out for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners
is seeking adjournment. We refuse to adjourn the hearing of the present
petition, considering the fact that the petition has remained pending
since the year 2013.
2. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR / CR
No.365 of 2013 registered at Excise Station, Konkan Division, Thane,
for offence under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
3. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was
recorded in the order dated 07.10.2013 when ad-interim stay of further
proceedings concerning CR No.365 of 2013 was granted. The relevant
portion of the said order reads as follows:-
"3. Mr. Chitnis submitted that there are two CRs
registered at the instance of the same complainant and in
MINAL Digitally signed
by MINAL
SANDIP SANDIP PARAB
Date: 2025.11.10
PARAB 14:55:48 +0530
relation to the same incident and occurrence but by different
police stations. In one C.R. registered at Valiv Police Station,
12_WP3542_13.doc
the investigations are going on. In the meanwhile, a second
CR has been registered by the Excise Station, Konkan
Division, Thane bearing CR No.365 of 2013. The learned
Senior Counsel relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Anju Chaudhari Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384.
4. In view thereof, there will be ad-interim order
restraining the Excise Station, Konkan Division, Thane from
proceeding further and filing any report in relation to CR
No.365 of 2013. However, it is clarified that in relation to the
first CR bearing CR No.342 of 2014, the investigation
should proceed and, equally, the report may be filed before
the competent Court."
4. In the writ petition also, specific ground of challenge is raised to
the effect that for the very same incident and same allegations, the
accused persons i.e. the petitioners could not be made to face two sets of
prosecutions based on the two FIRs. The other FIR / CR No.I 342 of
2013 was also recorded on the same day i.e. 17.09.2013 at Valiv Police
Station,Thane, for offences under Sections 353, 332, 143, 147, 148, 149,
427, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as also
Sections 65(e) and other Sections of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
5. Since this Court, while granting ad-interim relief in the context of
the subject FIR, clarified in the order dated 07.10.2013 that the
proceedings pertaining to the first FIR i.e. FIR / CR bearing No.I 342 of
2013 could continue, as per the statement made by the learned APP
recorded by this Court in the order dated 03.11.2025, the matter has
proceeded to the stage of recording evidence. In fact, we are informed
that two witnesses are already examined in the said trial.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that FIR No.I 342 of 2013
registered against the applicants was first in point of time with regard to
the allegations and incident, which also form the subject matter of the
subsequent FIR bearing No.365 of 2013 registered by the Excise
12_WP3542_13.doc
Authorities. It is also undisputed that the petitioners are facing
prosecution for various offences, including offence under Section 65(e)
of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 in the trial emanating out of the
first FIR i.e. CR No.I-342 of 2013. There can be no dispute about the
proposition of law that the accused persons cannot be made to face two
prosecutions and consequently, two trials for the very same incident and
allegations. Hence, we find substance in the grounds raised in the writ
petition seeking quashing of the FIR bearing No.365 of 2013. The
prosecution would face no prejudice, simply for the reason that the trial
emanating out of the first FIR i.e. CR No.I-342 of 2013 has now
proceeded and that, it has reached a stage of recording of evidence.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a) and CR No.365 of 2013 registered at Excise Station,
Konkan Division, Thane against the petitioners is quashed. It is made
clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case against the applicants as is being pursued in the trial emanating
from CR No.I-342 of 2013. The concerned trial Court, before whom the
proceedings are pending and have reached the stage of recording of
evidence, shall decide the same without being influenced by the order
passed in the present writ petition.
8. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal Parab
