SUPERITENDENT of Police of Nagpur Rural Dr Harssh Vishwanath Poddar has approached the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court and challenged a March 28, 2025 order passed by the Family Court, Vadodara (Gujrat), in Criminal Procedure No 803/2018. The Family Court accused SP Dr Poddar of failing to execute war- rants and potentially destroying government documents.

 

The High Court, citing Article 226 of the Constitution, ruled that part of the cause of action arose with- in its jurisdiction which makes the petition maintainable. It tem- porarily halted the enforcement of the Family Court’s order, with the next hearing scheduled for May 5, 2025. The case started from the Family Court’s observations regarding the execution of war- rants and government docu- ments. According to the Family Court, the SP had failed to com- ply with a notice issued to him on March 12, 2025 and the war- rants sent for execution had not been returned or served. The Family Court raised concerns that the warrants may have been destroyed and it ordered a police complaint to be registered against the concerned police offi- cials for alleged violations of sec- tions 188, 189, 223, 253, 255 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 145 (3) of Bombay Police Act. The Family Court’s order directed that the Police Inspector (PI) of Umred Police Station and the SP be charged with offences including disobedience of court orders, destruction of govern- ment documents, and obstruc- tion of justice. The court also instructed to to file a complaint and prepare a case against the officials within eight days.

 

However, the counsel of the SP has denied these allegations and stated that the warrants had been executed properly and no gov- ernment documents had been destroyed. They argued that the Family Court’s assumptions were based on inaccurate informa- tion and that the execution of the warrants had led to the arrest of the concerned person. In response to the petition, the High Court’s Nagpur Bench, comprising Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Vrushali Joshi, con- sidered the issue of territorial jurisdiction.

 

The court cited legal precedents, including the Navinchandra N Majithia case, and concluded that even if part of the cause of action arose out- side Nagpur, the writ petition was maintainable in the Nagpur Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court stated that, given the petition- er’s residence in Nagpur, a por- tion of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench which make it competent to entertain the peti- tion.

 

The Bombay High Court directed that the Family Court’s order from March 28, 2025 should not be enforced until further notice. The court also instruct- ed that the matter be returned to the Family Court for recon- sideration of the petitioner’s response, which includes a detailed explanation of the exe- cution of the warrants. The mat- ter has been adjourned, with the next hearing scheduled for May 5, 2025. In the interim, the High Court’s order has provided a temporary reprieve to the petitioner and prevented any immediate action based on the Family Court’s orig- inal ruling.The court also ordered that the petitioner’s counsel com- municate the interim order to the Family Court, Vadodara. Sr Adv Devendra Chauhan, Adv G S Gour, Adv Aditya Chaudhari appeared for the petitioner.