Disposed

Rashid S/O Babukhan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2011WP/14/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Writ Petition sought quashing of FIR No.366/2010. The court held that since the investigating officer was preparing the charge-sheet and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had already issued directions, the present petition was not appropriate for consideration. The petition was disposed of, directing petitioners to pursue their remedy before the concerned court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to petitioners to pursue appropriate remedy before the concerned court.

Rashid S/O Babukhan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2011)

PPD

1.wp.14-11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.14 OF 2011

¶6

Mr.Rashid s/o. Babukhan and another. ..Petitioners.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents.

¶9

Mr.A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms.M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 2^nd FEBRUARY, 2011.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

In all, three reliefs have been claimed in this Petition. When

¶14

learned Counsel for the Petitioners was called upon to indicate as to which relief the Petitioners would like to pursue, as one Petition cannot be entertained for two separate cause of actions, learned Counsel for

¶15

the Petitioner stated that the Petitioners would pursue the relief which is in respect of FIR No.366/2010. In other words, relief in terms of prayer clause (c) is not pressed in this Petition.

¶16

Insofar as , the relief pertaining to FIR No.366/2010 namely prayer clauses (a) & (b) are concerned, in the first place the Petitioners pray for quashing of the said FIR and further relief is to issue direction

¶17

¶18

1.wp.14-11

¶19

to initiate appropriate action against the concerned Officers responsible for their act of commission and omission which has been noticed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24^th Court, Borivli, Mumbai in its order dated 2^nd June, 2010.

¶20

Insofar as the first part of the relief in connection with FIR No. 366/2010 is concerned, learned A.P.P. on instructions of Investigating Officer Mr.R.K. Sharma who is present in Court, submits that the investigation is already complete and the Investigating Officer is in the process of filing the police report / charge-sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code before the concerned Court very shortly. She submits that it will be done within three days from today. If charge-sheet were to be filed, the question of quashing of FIR does not arise. The Petitioners in that case may have to pursue their remedy before the concerned Court which will be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Thus understood, nothing survives for consideration as regard to the first part of the relief.

¶21

Insofar as second part of relief concerning FIR No.366/2010 is concerned, since the issue has been noticed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in its order dated 2nd June, 2010 and directions have already been issued, we do not think it appropriate to

¶22

¶23

1.wp.14-11

¶24

entertain the present Writ Petition. Instead, in our opinion, the petitioner will have to pursue his remedy before the concerned Court which has passed the order dated 2nd June, 2010 for taking the directions issued by it to its logical end. If that happens, nothing would survive for consideration in the grievance of the petitioners made in this Petition justifying asking of further relief in connection with the said FIR.

¶25

Accordingly we dispose of this Petition with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedy before the concerned Court, which needless to observe will be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

¶26

(A. R. JOSHI, J.)

¶27

(A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Rashid S/O Babukhan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid S/O Babukhan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Narayan Jadhav Vs Shivanand Hanumant Bobde and Ors.

Anant Tatyaba Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramprakash Ramprasad Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nishan Singh Jaimal Singh Sohel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Razia D/O Gulam Mohammed and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sunny Kala Krida and Sanskrutik Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.