[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jitendra Punamchand Maru vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Ors on 27 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:14843-DB
WP-6214-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
signed by
BALAJI
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2026.03.27
17:21:30
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6214 OF 2025
+0530
Jitendra Punamchand Maru .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Central Bureau of Investigation
& Ors. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Rajendra Desai a/w Mr. Kunal Bhanage i/by Mr. Akshay
Pawar, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Amit Munde, SPP a/w Mr. Jai Vohra for Respondent No.1-
CBI.
Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w Ms. Neha
N. Patil, AOR a/w Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. Krishnakant
Deshmukh, Adarsh Vyas, Rama Gupta & Mr. Rajdatt Nagre for
Respondent No.2-UoI.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent
No.3-State.
Mr. Harish Salve, Senior Advocate, through V.C., a/w Mr.
Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rubin Vakil, Mr.
Ashwin Dave, Mr. Rishit Badiani & Mr. Gaurav Gangal i/by A.
S. Dayal & Associates, Advocates for Respondent No.4.
...
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Reserved on : 23rd March 2026
Pronounced on : 27th March 2026
ORDER :
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to
the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, CBI) to register a
First Information Report and investigate the matter relating to
the offence of bribery as disclosed by him in his letters dated
21st October 2025 and 29th October 2025.
Panchal
WP-6214-25.doc
2. On 23rd March 2026, the following order was passed by
this Court:-
"On 10th March 2026, we passed the following order:
"Mr. Kunal Bhanage, the learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks an adjournment on the ground that the
arguing counsel is not available today.
2. This is another petition filed by Jitendra
Punamchand Maru, who simply states that he is a citizen
of India and his right to set the criminal law in motion has
been recognized by law. Except that, the petitioner does
not say anything about him.
3. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has
filed this writ petition without making any disclosure as
per the Bombay High Court Rules, we hereby direct the
petitioner to remain physically present in the Court on the
next day.
4. Post this matter on 23rd March 2026 together with
Criminal Writ Petition No.5542 of 2025."
2. The petitioner is present in the Court and states that
previously he was engaged in the business of sale of plastics.
But presently there is no business activity carried out by him. On
a Court's query what is the source of information on the basis of
which this writ petition has been filed, Mr.Rajendra Desai, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, who is present in the Court,
states that after the petitioner came to know about a decision
rendered by the Eastern District Court of New York, he made an
application for obtaining a true attested copy of the said
judgment and the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Mr. Anil C. Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General
raises objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. The
learned Additional Solicitor General refers to an order passed by
the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) 812/2026 tilted "Ravi
Sharma, Advocate v. Union of India & Ors." and submits that a
similar petition, though labelled as Public Interest Litigation, has
been dismissed by the High Court of Delhi, a copy of which has
been tendered in the Court.
4. Judgment is reserved."
3. The petitioner states that the Ministry of Renewable
Energy formed a body in the name of Solar Energy Corporation
of India to explore the possibility of increasing use of renewable
energy in India and different State Governments entered into
Panchal
WP-6214-25.doc
power purchase agreements for distribution of electricity to the
consumers. It was around the year 2020 that an Indian
Corporate group entered into a conspiracy with Azure Global
Ltd. which also claimed to generate solar power to procure
contracts by using unlawful means. He further states that
these Corporate groups created a Multi Million Dollar Pension
Funds for the purpose of bribing several unknown government
officials. The petitioner refers to an order passed by the United
States District Court, Eastern Court of New York and states
that the Indian Corporate group proposed to pay incentives
which was nothing but bribe. The petitioner has also referred
to the order dated 24th November 2024 for Jury Trial
whereunder a notice was proposed to be given to the
defendants who are the Chairman, Executive Director,
Managing Director etc. of the Indian Corporate group.
However, there is no further information provided by the
petitioner as to the continuance of any proceedings in the US
Court.
4. Mr. Anil C. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
raised an objection to maintainability of this writ petition and
referred to an order passed by the Delhi High Court by which a
similar petition against the same Corporate groups labelled as
public interest litigation was dismissed.
5. In the order dated 10th March 2026, the Delhi High Court
observed that the Jury Trial demanded by the US Securities
and Exchange Commission does not even indicate any loss to
public exchequer.
6. To begin with, we may indicate that this writ petition is
similar to Criminal Writ Petition No.5542 of 2025 wherein the
Panchal
WP-6214-25.doc
petitioner has made a similar adventure seeking lodging of
criminal case by the CBI against another Corporate group of
India. This writ petition is clearly an abuse of the process of
the Court. The petitioner who states that his right to put the
criminal justice system in motion is recognized in law has
failed to provide any justification for not approaching the
Court in the last about one decade when someone had
allegedly tried to indulge in some unethical practices. In
course of the hearing, the petitioner who was present in the
Court stated that previously he was engaged in the business of
sale of plastic but, presently, he is not carrying on any
business activity. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated
that this writ petition has been filed on the basis of the
newspaper report which published the order passed by the US
Court.
7. In a writ petition of this nature, the High Court is
required to examine whether the petitioner is seeking any
personal gain or there is a private or oblique motive behind
filing of the petition. The registration of a criminal case is a
very serious matter and it entails drastic consequences to the
proposed accused person. This is the duty of the High Court to
examine the relevant materials and bestow its considerations
as to whether the prayer if granted would serve any public
cause. This is the experience across the High Courts that the
writ petitions of this kind or a petition masked as a public
interest litigation is filed at the behest of the failed competitors
or a rival business house or a disgruntled person.
8. In our opinion, the petitioner has failed to establish his
bona fide. The petitioner has no locus to file this writ petition
Panchal
WP-6214-25.doc
and he has not approached the Court with clean hands. This
writ petition does not serve any public purpose. Rather, a
petition like the present one causes serious harms and is
likely to cause harm to the reputation and business prospects
of any Corporate group.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in
this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.
[SUMAN SHYAM, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
Panchal
