Once the relief sought for FIR registration is fulfilled and the petitioner is unrepresented, a writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not prosecuted. This judgment reaffirms existing precedent regarding maintainability, with binding value for subordinate courts and persuasive authority elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/812/2021 of MS. SUJATA D/O NAMDEO MASRAM Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NAGPUR OFFICE AT CHAONI SADAR NAGPUR AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | HCBM040216272021 |
| Date of Registration | 10-11-2021 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL L. PANSARE, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE YANSHIVRAJ GOPICHAND KHOBRAGADE |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: Anil L. Pansare & Y.G. Khobragade, JJ. |
| Precedent Value | Binding on courts subordinate to the Bombay High Court; persuasive for other forums. |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition seeking registration of FIR becomes infructuous upon registration of the offence? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought a direction to register an FIR. The Addl. P.P. submitted that the offence had already been registered, rendering the plea redundant and resulting in the petition’s dismissal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts subordinate to the Bombay High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that where the relief sought—a direction for FIR registration—is fulfilled during pendency, the petition loses purpose and can be dismissed.
- Absence of the petitioner or their counsel when pleaded-for relief has already been granted may justify dismissal for non-prosecution.
- Lawyers should ensure prompt communication with clients regarding the status of such relief to avoid dismissal for non-prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the petitioner sought registration of an FIR. The State’s counsel apprised the court that the requested offence had already been registered.
- The court found that the core relief sought by the petitioner had thus been served.
- Noting further that nobody was present for the petitioner on the date of hearing, the court held that the petition had lost its cause and was not being prosecuted.
- Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as not prosecuted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No representation present for the petitioner on the date of hearing.
Respondent (State)
- The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence in question was already registered, thereby fulfilling the purpose of the writ petition.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the police authorities to register an FIR based on her complaint and statement. During the pendency of the petition, the State submitted that the offence had already been registered. On the subsequent date, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, indicating that the writ had served its purpose.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment involved the maintainability of writ petitions seeking directions for FIR registration after the police had already registered the offence. No substantive statutory interpretation or constitutional provision discussion is contained within the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing law regarding dismissal of infructuous petitions and non-prosecution is affirmed.