In this criminal writ petition, the High Court of Bombay examined three relief claims. The court held that claiming falsity of the F.I.R. or its quashability was premature and could not be decided at this stage, as factual inquiry belongs to investigation or trial. The claim for security was to be addressed by the Appropriate Authority.
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.
wp-21-11
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 21 OF 2011
Mohammed Usman Shaikh
...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr ...Respondents
Ms Seema Gupta i/by A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for State.
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- 4th February, 2011.
P.C.
is on the assumption that the F.I.R registered against the petitioner
being F.I.R.No.128/2010 for the offence referred to therein is false. The
question, whether the allegations in the said F.I.R. are false or otherwise, will be matter for investigation and trial. Unless the criminal
action initiated on the basis of the F.I.R.is taken to its logical end, one
2 wp-21-11
way or the other, at this stage, it is not possible to presume that the allegations in the F.I.R.filed against the petitioner are false. To get over this, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the observation made in the order while considering the prayer for bail dated 2.6.2010. Needless to observe that the discussion in the said order is in the context of considering the prayer for bail and cannot be the basis to authoritatively answer the issue in favour of the petitioner at this stage.
In view of the above, we hold that the first relief claimed in this petition is premature and cannot be gone into, at this stage.
3 wp-21-11
provide security to the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner to make an application to the Appropriate Authority for the said relief, who in turn, will decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with
law.
In view of the above, the petition is disposed of on the above
terms.
(A.R.JOSHI, J.)
(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the F.I.R. are false and can be presumed at this stage.
Whether the F.I.R. can be quashed based on the lower court's observation recorded during bail proceedings.
Whether a direction can be issued to provide security to the petitioner.
Mohammed Usman Shaikh
The State of Maharashtra
A.M.KHANWILKAR
A.R.JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
