11.wp.659.2026 Judgment.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 659 OF 2026 PETITIONER :- Shri Deepak S/o Dyandev Kamble, aged about 46 years, Occu- Service, R/o. Flat No.581, New Subhedar Layout, Uday Nagar, nagpur. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2) The Divisional Police Complaint Authority, Nagpur through its Chairperson. 3) The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, Civil Line, Nagpur. 4) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Nagpur. 5) The Regional Transport Office of Nagpur (City) through its Motor Vehicle Inspector officer namely Priti Kishor Nagdeve. 6) Shri. Yuvraj S/o. Ramchandra Suryawanshi, aged about 56 years, Occu – Police Sub-Inspector, Badge No.3808, at present Police Staton Sonegaon, Nagpur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.A.N. Shinde, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Ghogare, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 5/State. Mr. S.B. Trivedi, Advocate for Respondent No.6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2026:BHC-NAG:12832 11.wp.659.2026 Judgment.odt 2 CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 23 /09/2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The present petition is filed challenging the order below Exh.1 dated 27.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble I/c Chairperson in Complaint No.-CC/83/2025, whereby the complaint made to the Divisional Police Complaint Authority, Nagpur by the petitioner is rejected as per Sections 4(b), 4(e) and 4(g) of the Maharashtra Division Level Police Complaint Authority (Administration and Procedure) Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations of 2018”). 3. Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was made against the investigating officer – Yuvraj Suryawanshi who had conducted the investigation in Crime No.33 of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Due to serious lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, the trial has resulted into acquittal of 11.wp.659.2026 Judgment.odt 3 accused – Parag Pralhad Potdar who was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable as mentioned herein above. 4. Taking into consideration the serious lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, the applicant had moved a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur by representation dated 27.02.2025. The said representation had resulted in conducting an inquiry against the respondent (Investigating Officer)/ Yuvraj Suryawanshi. The Senior Police Inspector of Police Station, Sonegaon conducted an inquiry and submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Nagpur City vide communication dated 09.04.2025. The Deputy Commissioner of Police thereafter considered the statements recorded by the Inquiry Officer and passed an order on 11.07.2025 recommending imposition of penalty as the respondent/Yuvraj Suryawanshi was found to be guilty of committing dereliction of duty. 5. Mr. Shinde, learned counsel submits that upon finding the respondent guilty of serious lapses of investigation, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City has imposed a meager fine of Rs.2000/- in exercise of power under Rule 3 11.wp.659.2026 Judgment.odt 4 Clause 2(v) of the Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1956”). This, according to the petitioner, was disproportionate to the act of criminal misconduct on the part of the respondent and as such a complaint was filed to the Divisional Police Complaint Authority, Nagpur. The Divisional Police Complaint Authority, Nagpur though considered the complaint of the petitioner, however, without taking into consideration the punishment imposed vide order dated 29.10.2025 holding that the respondent was found guilty, rejected the complaint not only on the ground of delay but also on the ground of maintainability. 6. Mr. Shinde, learned counsel further submits that having found the respondent guilty of serious lapses in the investigation in the Crime No.33 of 2022, the minimum punishment of stoppage of increment ought to have been imposed upon by the Disciplinary Authority, however, the respondent/Yuvraj Suryawanshi, Investigating Officer in Crime No.33 of 2022 has been imposed with a punishment of fine of Rs.2000/-. The Divisional Police Complaint Authority, Nagpur 11.wp.659.2026 Judgment.odt 5 had also failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and simply rejected the complaint on the ground of delay holding that the complaint is presented after one year from the alleged act and or inaction on the part of the respondent and that the revision against the acquittal of the accused is pending before the Sessions Judge and also that the matter is outside the purview of the Division Police Complaint Authority. The impugned order is, therefore, erroneous which needs to be corrected by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Divisional Level Police Complaint Authority be again directed to entertain the complaint and pass appropriate order upon the disproportionate punishment imposed upon the respondent, hence, prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2026. 7. As against this, Mr. Ghogare, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 submit that the complaint is rightly rejected by the Divisional Police Complaint Authority as the complaint was found to be belatedly filed after one year from 11.wp.659.2026 Judgment.odt 6 the alleged act and or inaction on the part of the respondents. It is further submitted that as the revision against acquittal was filed by the applicant which is subjudice before the Court, hence, in view of prohibition under Regulation No.4(e) of the Regulations of 2018, the complaint could not be entertained and was rightly rejected as the matter was found to be outside the purview of the Divisional Police Complaint Authority. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition is devoid of substance and merit and hence, liable to be rejected. 8. I have gone through the Section 4 of the Regulations of 2018, it shows that the complaints which are not ordinarily entertainable are the complaints which are presented after one year from the alleged act or inaction and also the complaints where the matter is subjudice before a Court or Tribunal. The order dated 29.10.2025 imposing punishment shows that the punishment is imposed upon the respondent/Yuvraj Suryawanshi in exercise of power under Rule 3 Clause 2 (v) of Rules of 1956 which provides for imposition of a fine. The submission of Mr. Shinde, learned counsel submits that the 11.wp.659.2026 Judgment.odt 7 aforesaid Rule only provides for stoppage of increment appears to be incorrect, Rule 3, Clause 2(iv) provides also provides for an imposition of fine which shall not exceed one months pay. The respondent/Yuvraj Suryawanshi is imposed with a fine of Rs.2000/-. 9. Thus, the punishments which are available under the aforesaid Rule are already imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of power of the aforesaid Rule. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the revision against acquittal is still subjudice before the Competent Court. Thus, the bar under Section 4(e) of Regulations of 2018 also operates in the matter. Since the complaint is rejected not only on the point of limitation but also on the bar of Sections 4(e) and 4(g) of the Regulations of 2018, in my opinion, there is no error committed by the Divisional Police Complaint Authority, Nagpur in passing the impugned order. The impugned order is just and proper and passed taking into consideration the Regulations of 2018. No case is made out for interference of this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction. The petition is 11.wp.659.2026 Judgment.odt 8 devoid of substance and merit and is hereby dismissed. 10. Needless to mention that the observations made herein pertains to impugned order only. The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings against the concerned Police Officers if so advised before on appropriate forum. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) C.L. Dhakate Signed by: Mr. C.L. Dhakate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2026 11:16:42