Petitioners, being directors, sought writ jurisdiction when police did not take cognizance of a fraud complaint. Court held alternate statutory remedy under CrPC is available and dismissed the writ petition as no extraordinary jurisdiction was called for at this stage.
The Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed.
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,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 561 OF 2009
Baliram s/o Keshav Mali & others ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for the petitioners Shri S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for the respondents/ State
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ.
DATED : 3RD AUGUST, 2009.
ORAL ORDER :
Directors and borrowers, who according to the petitioners, allegedly committed fraud and cheated the Society. Crores of Rupees are misutilised by committing fraud, according to the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the proceedings under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act are also initiated which are pending. The allegation is that in spite of the complaint, police is not taking any cognizance of the complaint.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J)
(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
fmp/cwp561.09
1 issue framed by the court
Whether extraordinary jurisdiction is called for to interfere with the police's non-cognizance in a fraud complaint against directors when an alternate statutory remedy is available.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baliram s/o Keshav Mali & others
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
NARESH H. PATIL
SHRIHARI P. DAVARE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
