Judgment · High Court · 2026

C]Issue a writ of mandamus or any otherappropriate writ, order or direction in the nature ofwrit of mandamus, thereby directing therespondent No.1 Secretary, Home Department, Maharashtra State to take necessarydepartmental action against the respondent No.2and 3 for dereliction of duties and so also fordeliberate inaction on their part in not lodgingcriminal prosecution against the culprits on thebasis of report forwarded by the petitioner on12.12.2025, 01.01.2026 and 24.02.2026, and forthat purpose issue necessary orders”.2.Today the learned A.P.P. has pointed out that F.I.R.bearing Crime No.456/2026 for the offences punishable underSections 119(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 189(1), 191(1) (2), 190 ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has already been registeredand therefore so far as prayer clause (B) is concerned, thepurpose of the said prayer clause has been subserved. As faras the grievance with regard to taking action against the erringpolice authorities is concerned, learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty toapproach the Grievance Redressal Committee constitutedunder Section 22P of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.3.We find that since the purpose of filing of this writpetition to the extent of prayer clause (B) has been subserved, we dispose of this writ petition by granting liberty to the (3) 940 Cri.WP-534.2026.odtpetitioner to make application/complaint before the concernedAuthority constituted under Section 22P of the MaharashtraPolice Act, 1951. In case the petitioner prefersapplication/complaint before such Authority, the Authorityshall make an endeavour to decide the saidapplication/complaint as early as possible and preferablywithin a period of three months from the date on which thesaid application or complaint is made.(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE)(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGEJUDGEVD_Dhirde