Allowed

Mohd.Rafiq Abdul Khadar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC13 Jun 2013APPLN/2301/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad granted anticipatory bail to applicants in a quashing petition filed under a false complaint regarding internal school management disputes and ordered the investigation to be completed within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicants. Investigation to be completed within 8 weeks by the investigating officer.

Mohd.Rafiq Abdul Khadar and Others Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 A 2301 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No.2301 of 2013

¶4

Mohd. Rafiq S/o Abdul Khadar And Others.

¶5

.. Applicants.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Another. .. Respondents.

¶8

Shri. I.D. Maniyar, Advocate for the applicants.

¶9

Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1.

¶10

Shri. H.M. Shaikh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATE : 13^th JUNE 2013

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard.

¶14

We have perused the record placed before us. It

¶15

seems that there is dispute going on in between members of the Management in various forums regarding administration of the Society and the school. The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report -

¶16

2 A 2301 of 2013

¶17

M-Case No.I-36/2013 registered with Police Station Begumpura, Aurangabad. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complainant is an employee of the school. She is in habit of making complaints against members of the management. A false complaint was made which is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶18

We have perused the complaint. The investigating officer is present in Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in case the applicants cooperate with the investigating officer, whenever required, the investigation would be completed at the earliest. The investigating officer is to contact responsible officers of different departments to ascertain whether any case is made out for offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, submits that the applicants would make themselves available for cooperating with the investigating officer whenever required and intimated by the investigating officer. The applicants are released on anticipatory bail, according to the learned counsel.

¶20

3 A 2301 of 2013

¶21

The investigating officer shall complete the investigation within 8 weeks and submit appropriate report to the trial Court. In case the report filed is adverse to the applicants then the applicants may resort to appropriate statutory remedies as permissible in law.

¶22

The criminal application is disposed of.

¶23

Sd/- Sd/- (A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶24

rsl

Mohd.Rafiq Abdul Khadar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Rafiq Abdul Khadar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Chandbee Sherjang Pathan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Amirali Shaikh Nabi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mir Ahtesham Ali Mir Zafar Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rameshwar Madhukar Sarpe Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sachin Ganpat Badambe C.NO.4444 Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Sudhakar Waklekar, C.No. 4310, Open District Prison, Paithan Vs the State of Maharashtra