10 Sep 2026
Order issued
ConcludedThe High Court quashed the chargesheet, finding prima facie that the complainant constable and colleagues foisted a false case.
adverse finding.
Source: Criminal Application No. 612 of 2018
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0098Mumbai Suburban, MaharashtraJudgment 10 September 2026
Mumbai Suburban Man vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
The High Court recorded that a constable stopped a Mumbai jeweller on his motorcycle in Borivali East on 04.02.2018, kept his licence, and, by the man's account, demanded Rs. 500 as a penalty or Rs. 300 as a bribe; the man was then detained at Kasturba Marg Police Station until an FIR for assault and intimidation was registered around 2:00 am. The High Court held that the man's mobile-phone video and the constable's WhatsApp messages with senior officers prima facie showed the constable and his colleagues were instrumental in foisting a false case. It noted that police-station CCTV footage that should have been preserved was not available. The High Court quashed the chargesheet before the Borivali Metropolitan Magistrate and ordered any confiscated licence returned.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 10 September 2026 in Criminal Application No. 612 of 2018, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Coram: Milind N. Jadhav, J.) adjudicated the matter concerning the Police Constable (complainant), Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai Police.
- Register number
- MH 01 CW 0053
- Case reference
- Criminal Application No. 612 of 2018
- Court and date
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Coram: Milind N. Jadhav, J.), 10 September 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police Constable (complainant), Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section (charges quashed) of the Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “the prosecution story is not only unbelievable but in my opinion it is a false and concocted story and case foisted on the Applicant.” (at para 11)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Adverse finding.
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 10 September 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Court finding (prima facie)
The court made a prima facie finding while quashing the case against the man.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“the prosecution story is not only unbelievable but in my opinion it is a false and concocted story and case foisted on the Applicant.” (para 11)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
25 Sep 2026
(Past-week sweep: record written from the order text; quote checked verbatim against the order.)
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.