Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 75900 (BOM)

RAHUL DIGAMBER MOHITE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

WP/2062/2016 · 2025-11-04

Shri Manish Pitale, Smt Manjusha Ajay Deshpande

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 15-WP-2062-2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2062 OF 2016 Rahul Digamber Mohite … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents ******  None for the Petitioner.  Ms. Sangita Phad, APP, for the respondent-State. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 4th NOVEMBER 2025 P.C. : . When this petition is called out for hearing, there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The record shows that this petition filed as far back as in the year 2016, was not effectively heard even once before this Court. On 20.06.2017, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 3. With the assistance of the learned APP, we have perused the writ petition and the prayers made therein. It appears that the grievance of the petitioner is that the police did not carry out Kartikeya,P.A. 2 15-WP-2062-2016.doc proper investigation in the context of the FIR registered at the behest of the petitioner and that the petitioner and other persons have been falsely implicated in the cross FIR. 4. In that context, the petitioner sought withdrawal of chargesheet filed against him and others, with a further direction for reinvestigation in an independent and impartial manner, as also a prayer for quashing the ‘false FIR’ registered against the petitioner. 5. The learned APP, on instructions, makes a statement that the two FIRs led to trials being conducted and during the course of the trial, it appears that the parties had settled their disputes. As a consequence, both the trials concluded in judgments and orders dated 30.01.2020 acquitting the accused in both the cases. 6. Copies of the two judgments and orders of the concerned Court at Borivali, Mumbai, have been tendered. The same are taken on record and marked as ‘X’ and ‘Y’ for identification. 7. In the light of the said documents placed on record, we find that nothing survives in the present petition and that it deserves to be dismissed as such. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Kartikeya,P.A.