[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kishor J. Raikar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 10 February, 2026
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2026:BHC-AS:7149-DB
WAKLE
MANOJ Manoj 23-WP-3944-2013.doc
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.02.11
18:56:08 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3944 OF 2013
Shri Kishor J. Raikar,
Aged: 43 years, Occupation : Advocate,
Residing at "Daffodils", Flat No.101,
1st Floor, Lullanagar, Pune-411040 .....Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. The Director General of Police,
State of Maharashtra.
3. Shri Shahaji Solunke,
Addl. Commissioner of Police,
Crime Branch, Pune.
4. Shri V.T. Pawar,
Asstt. Commissioner of Police,
Wanorie Divn., Pune.
5. Shri Ashok Patil,
Police Sub-Inspector,
Wanorie Police Chowki, Pune
Under Wanorie Police Station.
6. Shri Bajirao Mohite,
Senior Police Inspector,
Wanorie Police Station, Pune. .....Respondents
__________________________________________
Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal, for the Petitioner.
Smt. P. P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
__________________________________________
CORAM :A. S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 20th JANUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th FEBRUARY, 2026.
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2026 20:45:03 :::
Manoj 23-WP-3944-2013.doc
JUDGMENT :
- (PER SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of the parties.
2) Present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for seeking a direction to Respondent No.3 to take cognizance of the
complaint forwarded by Petitioner and to register an FIR against
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and their co-accused, as specifically referred in the
said complaint. Additionally it is prayed for a direction to the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 to initiate appropriate departmental action against the
Respondent Nos.3 to 6 on account of their misconduct.
3) Heard Mr. Bhujbal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and
Smt. Shinde, learned APP for the Respondent-State. The Petition is opposed
by Respondent No.6 by filing his Affidavit-in-Reply.
4) The Petitioner's case is that, since February 2010 his brother
Ulhas Raikar has been residing in a tenement bearing Flat No.301, A-1
Building, 3rd Floor, Mandke Advantage Homes Housing Society, Lulla
Nagar, Pune as a tenant of Girish Banaker. An amount of Rs.3,80,000/-
was deposited and three months advance rent of Rs.33,000/- was paid
by Ulhas Raikar before occupying the said premises. The landlord
Mr.Banaker had authorized one Mr. Bhalchandra Deosthale to collect
rent from Petitioner's brother. However, no rent agreement was recorded.
Manoj 23-WP-3944-2013.doc
It is stated that, by letters dated 21 st & 22nd September 2011 addressed to
the said society, the Petitioner's brother raised certain issues relating to
cleanliness, hygiene etc. However, it was in vain.
5) Thereafter, Ulhas Raikar wrote a couple of letters to the
society raising issue regarding supplying of unhygienic water and the
revised guidelines for keeping tenants. However, the society got annoyed
and therefore in order to harass him, the Secretary and the Manager of
the society disconnected the gas line and threatened him. The landlord
sent an email to Ulhas Raikar and informed him to vacate the said
premises. Thereafter, Ulhas Raikar wrote a letter to the Registrar of the
Cooperative Society and complained about conduct of the committee
members of the society. However, on 05 th April 2012, the society
members Prashant Huddar, his wife, the Chairman of the society
Mr.Kshirsagar and his wife entered into the aforesaid premises and
demanded Rs.25,000/- from Mr. Ulhas Raikar and also threatened him to
vacate the premises. Thereafter, wife of Prashant Huddar abused him in
filthy language. Meanwhile, police came there and took Ulhas Raikar to
police station. There, Respondent No.5 abused him in filthy language
and threatened him of dire consequences. Ulhas Raikar then was sent to
the lock-up and detained. Respondent No.5 then recorded a complaint of
one of the members of society but refused to record the complaint of
Manoj 23-WP-3944-2013.doc
Ulhas Raikar. Thereafter, Petitioner was called at the police station by
Ulhas Raikar. Hence, the Petitioner went there. But Respondent No.5
abused him. Thereafter, Petitioner's brother was released from the lock-
up on the next day. On 06th April 2012 Ulhas Raikar gave a written
complaint to the Senior Inspector of Police, Wanorie Police Station,
against the committee member concerned. However, Respondent No.5
and Hawaldar Bhosale refused to take that complaint. On the same day
Ulhas Raikar sent a complaint to Respondent No.4 against the committee
members and Respondent No.5. However, no action was taken.
6) On 13th April 2012, the Petitioner wrote a complaint to
Respondent No.4 against Respondent Nos.5 & 6, but it was in vain. On
20th April 2012, Ulhas Raikar approached the ACP concerned and
requested him that he would appear on 24 th April 2012 to give his
statement. However, on 23rd April 2012, at about 9.00 p.m. the police
summoned Ulhas Raikar to initiate criminal proceedings against him.
7) Meanwhile, Ulhas Raikar filed a Civil Suit in the Small
Causes Court, Pune. On 01st June 2012, Petitioner forwarded a complaint
to Mr. Prakash Pawar, ADGP (Prisons) reminding him about the
complaint dated 17th May 2012. It was followed by reminders dated 27 th
September 2012 and 27th October 2012, but no action was taken on the
said complaints. Therefore, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Director
Manoj 23-WP-3944-2013.doc
General of Police on 22nd January 2013. However, none of the complaints
were taken cognizance of. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the present
Petition.
8) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, although
cognizable offences were made out against the Respondent Nos.5 and 6
and the other co-accused persons, deliberately, no police action was
taken against any of them. He therefore submitted that, the prayers in
the Petition may be granted.
9) In reply, the learned APP submitted that, looking at the
allegations made by the Petitioner, maximum this could be a case of civil
dispute, but certainly not of such a nature as to warrant the registration
of any criminal offence, as prayed for. According to the learned APP,
there is no substance in the Petition and it be dismissed.
10) We have carefully perused the Petition and the documents
enclosed therein. From the said record, it appears that, the disputes
between Ulhas Raikar and the society members were related to issues of
water cleanliness and the feeding of dogs. Said disputes were of civil
nature. However, Ulhas Raikar wanted a police action against the
accused persons which is not possible. All the alleged incidents are more
than 10 years old. As such, nothing survives in the Petition. Moreover,
Ulhas Raikar is not party to this Petition. It is clear that Ulhas Raikar has
Manoj 23-WP-3944-2013.doc
not claimed any relief for himself and it is the Petitioner who wants to
lodge a crime in his place.
11) In the wake of above, we do not find any merit in the
Petition. As a result, the Petition is dismissed.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
