In a criminal writ petition seeking to quash an FIR, the Court held that the core dispute was a question of fact regarding alleged misuse of the petitioner's name. The Court stated such factual issues must be tried before a trial court, rendering the writ petition maintainable.
The petition to quash the FIR was rejected and disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.780 of 2008.
Ramesh Save ..Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
Mr.Filji Fredric i/b.F.F.& Associates for the
Petitioner
Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for the State
CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE &
R.Y.GANOO, JJ.
DATED : 20th June, 2008.
P.C.
1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner. We have perused the report submitted
by the Crime Branch of Nashik City Police.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner did not apply for any
loan and it appears that someone else misused his
name. Such an issue will have to be decided during
the trial and the petition to quash the FIR on this
disputed question of fact cannot be entertained.
3. Petition is rejected.
(R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (B.H.Marlapalle, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition to quash an FIR can be entertained when the quashing depends on a disputed question of fact regarding misuse of name.
The scope of the High Court's power under Criminal Writ Jurisdiction in deciding facts during criminal trial.
Whether to reject a petition challenging an FIR based on factual disputes outside the ambit of jurisdiction.
Ramesh Save
The State of Maharashtra
B.H.Marlapalle
R.Y.Ganoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court