Dismissed

M/S. Nikhil Machines Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Mar 2011WP/751/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandatory direction to register a criminal complaint, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the petition. Observing that alternate legal remedies were available, the court declined to direct the police to register the offence, relegating the petitioner to those statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioners relegated to avail alternate remedies available in law.

M/S. Nikhil Machines Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

wp 751-11.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 751 OF 2011

¶5

Nikhil Machines Pvt Ltd & Anr .. Petitioners

¶6

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Yashodhar Chandulal with Sarida Unny for the Petitioners Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP for the State

¶9

Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Counsel i/b S.M. Sabrad for Resp. 3 to 5 Mr. G.B. Kedia for Respondent No. 6

¶10

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.N. GILANI, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 21^st MARCH, 2011.

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus in essence to direct the respondent – police to register an offence on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 6^th March 2011. The other reliefs which the petitioners have prayed for in the petition pertain to ad-interim reliefs to which it is not necessary to advert to at this stage.

¶14

It appears that the petitioners had filed the aforesaid complaint

¶15

¶16

wp 751-11.doc

¶17

with the concerned police station on 6^th March 2011. According to the petitioners, statement of the respondents came to be recorded by the police. However, till today, no offence has been registered and consequently the matter has not been investigated.

¶18

Mr. Gupte, the learned senior counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 has, by referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in 'All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd) Vs Union of India & Ors' (1996) 11 SCC 581, 'Aleque Padamsee Vs Union of India' (2007) 6 SCC 171 and 'Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P' AIR 2008 SC 907, urged for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioners have alternate remedies available in law.

¶19

4. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments in the petition, according to us, the petitioners may avail the remedies available to them in law. In that light of the matter, therefore, this petition is dismissed relegating the petitioners to avail such remedies as are available to the petitioners in law.

¶20

[ M.N. GILANI, J ]

¶21

[ P.V. HARDAS, J ]

¶22

¶23

wp 751-11.doc

¶24

M/S. Nikhil Machines Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Nikhil Machines Pvt. Ltd. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Atmaram Ghag Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dharamraj R. Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rafik Babu Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra