Home / Supreme Court / Judgments / 2026 / Diary 10258

AKBARALI A. DINGANKAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Supreme Court of India | Diary 10258/2026

Status

ROP - of Main Case

Decided On

12-03-2026

Bench

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Petitioner

AKBARALI A. DINGANKAR

Respondent

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Primary Holding

Where a High Court disposes of a writ petition seeking FIR registration based on an unverified prosecutorial statement, the petitioner's remedy lies under Section 175(3) BNSS, and courts need not interfere when alternative statutory remedies remain available.

Download PDF Check another SC case

Full Judgment Text

ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4480/2026 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-03-2025 in CRWP No. 4757/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay] AKBARALI A. DINGANKAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 66717/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 66714/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT Date : 12-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nina R Nariman, Adv. Mr. Mrinmay Bhattmewara, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Saini, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR For Respondent(s) : 1

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction to register a First Information Report (“FIR”) based on his complaint dated 25.03.2022. It appears the High Court disposed of the petition by taking note of the statement made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor that already an FIR has been registered. 3. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid statement is not correct insofar as lodging of an FIR on petitioner’s complaint is concerned and even if it is correct, the petitioner has not been supplied copy of any such FIR. 4. Be that as it may, we are of the view that if the FIR has not been registered on 2

the application of the petitioner, the petitioner has alternative remedy under Section 175(3) of BNSS to apply for registration of FIR. 5. In view of the above, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the High Court by leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedy. 6. Consequently, the special leave petition is dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (CHETAN ARORA) (SAPNA BANSAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 3

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status

Check case status for High Courts across India