Dismissed

Mohd Imam Ul Haque v. the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2010WP/609/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner sought direction to register a crime and conduct an investigation regarding threats and handling of signature on stamp paper under the IPC. This Bench dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge dismissing the complaint and revision could not be treated as perverse as the petitioner failed to adduce prima

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; directions to register crime and investigate were refused.

Mohd Imam Ul Haque Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 609 OF 2010

¶5

Mohd. Imam Ur Haque VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

Smt. Rajshree Gudgilla, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent/State.

¶10

[CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]

¶11

[DATE : 27th September, 2010]

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner seeks direction to register crime on basis of his complaint dated 10th February, 2008 and to carry out investigation in the matter.

¶14

The petitioner is original complainant. He filed complaint against the respondents No. 3 to 7 for offences punishable under section 383, 384, 385 and 386 of the I.P. Code. According to him, he is a Civil Contractor. The respondents No. 3 to 7 worked with him at Aurangabad. They

¶15

had developed jealousy and ill-will against him. They allegedly allured him to go with them at a place in the outskirts of the city. They obtained his signature on a

¶16

( 2 )

¶17

handwritten stamp paper by putting him under threat. The learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, after recording necessary evidence under section 202. The petitioner filed criminal revision No. 350/2008. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition.

¶18

What appears from the record is that the disputed document on which the signature of the petitioner was obtained was not used in any proceedings. It appears further that the petitioner failed to adduce prima facie evidence in support of the complaint regarding the story narrated by him. It appears that the respondents No. 3 to 7 were working with the petitioner in the past on the construction work. No substantial reason appears to be shown to cause interference in the discretionary orders of the learned Magistrate and the revisional Court. The said orders cannot be treated as perverse. No scope for interference under section 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed.

¶19

[V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE

¶20

NPJ/criwp609-10

¶21

( 3 )

Mohd Imam Ul Haque v. the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Imam Ul Haque v. the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah Vs Ram Babruwan Chendke and Ors.

Navnath Nagari Sahakari Patsansthal Maryadit Parola Vs Dilip Bhila Patil

Sayyad Zakir Hussain Vs Sau Reshma Mumtaz Zakir Sayyad and Anr.

M/S Jayraj Jwellers Vs Satyaprakash Bansilal Varma

Hakim Gulab Pathan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Deepak Karamsingh Malke and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra