Disposed

Shambhulal Morarji Gori v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2011WP/272/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that the petitioner cannot seek quashing of the FIR as it alleges him as a co-conspirator receiving amount from the complainant. The court stated the petitioner is free to pursue remedies after police report filing.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashing petition disposed of; petitioner free to pursue remedy after filing of police report/charge-sheet.

Shambhulal Morarji Gori Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

272.11

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.272 OF 2011

¶4

Shambhulal Morarji Gori ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr.R.D.Soni i/b M/s.Ram & Co. for Petitioner.

¶6

Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for State.

¶7

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 22, 2011.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P.

¶10

By this Petition, it is prayed that F.I.R. registered with Vashi Police Station vide No.457 of 2010 dated 21^st October, 2010 be quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner has been named as accused No.5. The F.I.R. came to be registered only after this Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the complainant being Criminal Writ Petition No. 1673/2010 decided on 12^th October, 2010. In the said decision, this Court has plainly observed that the written complaint dated 15^th March, 2010 discloses commission of cognizable offence. If so, the Police Official was

¶11

obliged to register F.I.R. on receipt of information regarding commission of

cognizable offence.

272.11

To overcome this position, the argument canvassed before us is that the F.IR. makes no reference to the act of commission and omission of the petitioner-accused No.5 in any manner. In other words, the petitioner cannot be proceeded on the basis of such F.I.R. However, on fair reading of the F.I.R. in question, it does appear that the prosecution case is that the petitioner is one of the co-conspirator and received amount paid towards the transaction from the complainant. It is not as if no allegation is made against the petitioner in the F.I.R.

¶16

In view of the above, the question of quashing of F.I.R. does not arise, however, the petitioner would be free to pursue such other remedy after filing of police report/charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code, which proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made by us in this decision which are limited to the relief of quashing of F.I.R.

¶17

Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Shambhulal Morarji Gori v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhulal Morarji Gori 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

Vahidali Abdulgani Chuhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandeep Baliram Humne Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yadayya Pushayya Kadamanchi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajaram Shobha Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Meddisonsy System India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Purandar Pathak Vs the State of Maharsahtra and Anr.