Bombay High Court
WP/1878/2019 of VIJAY S/O. LALU JADHAV Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS on 12 October 2026
W. P. 1878-2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1878 OF 2019 VIJAY S/O. LALU JADHAV ….Petitioner VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS …..Respondents ….. Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Adv. Usha Wayal Kale
13- Cri. W. P. 1878-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1878 OF 2019
VIJAY S/O. LALU JADHAV
….Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…..Respondents
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Adv. Usha Wayal Kale h/f Mr. Vishal A. Bagal APP for Respondents: Mr. N. B. Patil Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : M. D. K. Rajput
.....
CORAM :
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J.
DATED : OCTOBER 12, 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :-
1. Heard.
2. From the submission of both the learned counsel, it appears that though the petitioner has prayed for direction to register the crime against respondent Nos.3 to 6 on the ground of misappropriation of Rs. 8,18,677/- but the record shows that the concerned Assistant Registrar had appointed one inquiry officer, wherein certain financial irregularities were found against the concerned respondents. The Assistant Registrar even passed order dated 29.12.2018 directing to close certain Bank accounts of the society. However, that order was challenged before the Joint Registrar and Joint Registrar set aside that order. 2026:BHC-AUG:48745-DB
13- Cri. W. P. 1878-2019.odt
3. It is to be noted that the present petitioner was not party to the said proceeding before the Joint Registrar, and therefore, he filed Writ Petition before this Court. This Court granted relief to the petitioner and asked the Joint Registrar to issue notice to the petitioner before re-hearing the matter. As such, both the learned counsel submit that the matter is still pending before the Joint Registrar for adjudication after giving opportunity to the present petitioners.
4. Under such circumstances, direction for registration of crime against respondent Nos. 3 to 6 for the alleged misappropriation appears premature since the proceeding before the Joint Registrar to that effect is still pending.
5. In view of the same, we find it appropriate that the petitioner may pursue the remedy before the Joint Registrar first. Therefore, the present Writ Petition appears to be premature in the light of subsequent events and it stands disposed of accordingly. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE YSK/