Partly allowed

M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. M. S. Rajasekharan and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2012WP/321/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of a private complaint filed against them under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC. The High Court held that since no order was passed by the lower court, no extraordinary jurisdiction to quash arose. Petition rejected.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; continued ad-interim relief denied due to lack of action by Magistrate.

M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs M. S. Rajasekharan and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

28.wp321.12.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 321 OF 2012

¶5

M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd. & ors. ... Petitioners. Versus

¶6

Mr. M.S. Rajasekharan & ors. ... Respondents. ---

¶7

Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Sr. Advocate a/w. Ms. Soma Singh i/b. Mr. Vivek Sharma for Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. A.S. Gadkari and Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar for Respondent No. 1.

¶9

Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for State.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA AND SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , JJ DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2012

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1 Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

¶13

2 The prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of private complaint filed by the contesting Respondent. Admittedly, as of today, the order issuing process has not been passed by the learned Magistrate.

Talwalkar

1/3

28.wp321.12.sxw

3 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that though order of process is not passed and though the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance, this Court can always entertain this Petition, if it is shown that filing of complaint is an abuse of process of law.

¶19

4 As of today, the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance. There is nothing on record to show that any order has been passed by the learned Magistrate on the complaint. Therefore, there is no reason to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have to be used sparingly and in an exceptional and rare cases. Therefore, this is not a case where at this stage, any interference is required to be made. However, if occasion arises, the Petitioners can file fresh a Petition raising the same contentions, which are raised in this Petition.

Talwalkar

2/3

3 28.wp321.12.sxw

5 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioners seeks continuation of ad-interim relief granted on 6^th February, 2012. As no action is admittedly taken on the basis of the private complaint, we cannot accede to the said request.

¶24

6 In view of what is observed above, the Petition is rejected. It is obvious that all contentions raised by the Petitioners shall remain open.

¶25

( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) (A.S. OKA, J.)

¶26

Talwalkar

¶27

3/3

M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. M. S. Rajasekharan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. M. S. Rajasekharan 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

Rajwardhan Babaso Patil and Ors. Vs Vijaysinha Jadhav and Anr.

M/S. Dhawal Properties Vs Ratnakar Chandrkant Tupe and Othrs

Ahmed Mohiuddin Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nanhukhan Babumiya Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Acharmal Tulsani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinod Subhas Chavan Vs Himmatrao Deshbhratar and Ors.