Dismissed

Dinesh Shyamlal Chandnani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Aug 2011WP/1089/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two interconnected criminal writ petitions. One sought quashing of an FIR for corruption charges; the other sought directions to complete investigation. Since the investigation concluded and was resubmitted to the Metropolitan Magistrate, the Court rejected the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Both the Petitions were rejected as they no longer survive after completion of investigation and forwarding of the file to the lower court.

Dinesh Shyamlal Chandnani Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2011)

wp.1089-2011

acd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1089 OF 2011

¶6

Dinesh Shyamlal Chandnani

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

WITH

¶12

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1611 OF 2011

¶13

Sanjraj Harishchandra Mangeshkar

¶14

...Petitioner.

¶15

Vs.

¶16

The State of Maharashtra . ..Respondent.

¶17

Mrs. P.U. Badadare i/b Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat, for the Petitioner in WP 1089/2011. Mr. V.G. Pradhan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Omkar K. Shaikh for the petitioner in WP 1611/2011 and for Respondent no.2 in WP 1089/2011.

¶18

Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State in WP 1089/2011. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State in WP 1611/2011.

¶19

¶20

wp.1089-2011

¶21

CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ.

¶22

AUGUST 08, 2011.

¶23

P.C.:

¶24

1 Both these Petitions are inter-connected and hence are being disposed by this common order.

¶25

Criminal Writ Petition no.1089 of 2011 filed by the accused praying for quashing of CR no.11 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 109, 465, 467, 474, 120B of IPC. Whereas, Criminal Writ Petition no.1611 of 2011 filed by the complainant-Sanjraj Mageshkar prays for directions to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and submit his final report within ninety days.

¶26

Mr. Gadkari, the learned APP has placed before us a copy of the order dated 6.8.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per the said order, the

¶27

¶28

wp.1089-2011

¶29

Investigating Officer Shri M.A. Inamdar, ACP has submitted his final report along with an application under Section 173(8) of Cr. P.C. before the Special Court. The learned Special Judge, on perusal of the charge sheet, noted that no case was made out for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The chargesheet has been filed also for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 465, 467, 471, 474, 120B of IPC as well as Section 89A and 32 of Maharashtra Co.Op. Societies Act, 1960. The learned Special Judge, therefore, directed the Investigating Officer to re-submit the chargesheet for the additional charges, before the competent court of Metropolitan Magistrate who in turn would pass the order of committal.

¶30

Thus the investigation has been completed, and the final report has already been filed by the Investigating Officer. It will be now resubmitted before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, for the offences punishable under the IPC.

¶31

We are also informed that as of now there is no case made out

¶32

in the chargesheet submitted against the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition no.1089 of 2011, and further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr. P.C.

wp.1089-2011

may continue.

Hence, both the Petitions do not survive any further and are

¶37

rejected as such.

¶38

(U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Dinesh Shyamlal Chandnani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Shyamlal Chandnani v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Salim Abdul Rajjak Baig Vs the State of Maharashtra

Navinchandra Umarshi Dedhia Vs Inspector of Police, Mantunga Police Station and Ors.

Maruti Nivrutti Navle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rahul Rameshwardas Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amir Ali Abdul Rehman Khoja Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yatendrasingh Ajabsingh Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra