Disposed

Rajendra Ambar Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Jul 2013APPLN/2337/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application challenging the registration of an FIR regarding the storage of unauthorized liquor, the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad declined to interfere at the current stage. The court directed the investigating officer to file the final report within ten days. It observed the storage of large liquor stocks as a serious concern and advised the Vigilance Department to take

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application disposed of; Report to be filed within ten days; Vigilance Department directed to take steps.

Rajendra Ambar Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cra2337.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2337 OF 2013

¶6

Rajendra Ambar Mohite,
Age-43 years, Occu: at present Nil,
R/o-Plot No.24, Police Colony,
Vadel Road, Near Valwadi,
Deopur, Dhule.

¶7

...APPLICANT

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra
and others.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

 ...
 Shri. P.M.Shah,Senior Counsel i/b. Smt.
 Pratibha Wankhede (Bharad) Advocate for
 Applicant.
 Shri. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 and 2.

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ

¶14

 DATE : 15TH JULY, 2013

¶15

cra2337.13

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2.The Applicant challenges registration of

¶20

first information report in Crime No.169 of 2012.
The prosecution case is that residential unit was
allotted to the Applicant on 8th March, 2012. When

¶21

the premises was raided on 1st October, 2012, the
squad found boxes of liquor bottles stored in the
said house.

¶22

3.Shri. Shah, learned senior counsel

¶23

appearing for the Applicant submits that the
Applicant was not the allottee of the said
flat/unit on the day when the squad raided the
premises. The Applicant was not in possession of
the said accommodation.

¶24

investigation in the subject crime is complete.

¶25

cra2337.13

¶26

¶27

The investigating officer has collected material
for filing report.

¶28

5.In the facts of the case, we are not
inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.

¶29

6.We may add, that it is a matter of
serious concern that in the Police Colony having
36 buildings, in one of the building such huge
stock of unauthorized liquor bottles was found.
Apart from the illegalities involved in storing of
such products, safety of the policemen residing in
the subject area, is also to be looked into by the
concerned department and the responsible officers.
The Vigilance Department shall take appropriate
steps.

¶30

7.We do not express any opinion on the

¶31

merits of the matter. The Applicant may resort to
appropriate remedies as permissible in law, after
filing of the report. The report shall be filed

¶32

cra2337.13

¶33

¶34

within TEN DAYS from today. The Criminal

¶35

Application stands disposed of.

¶36

8. Authenticated copy of this order be provided

¶37

to the learned A.P.P.

¶38

[A.I.S. CHEEMA,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]

¶39

asb/JUL13

Rajendra Ambar Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Ambar Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaykumar Karbhari Golhar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Shivkumar Subhashchandra Goyal and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sitabai Chandrakant Dhavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Govind Ambadas Pakhre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyanoba Baburao Pandhare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sukhdev Hanumant Pandhare, C.No. 4245, Open District Prison, Paithan Vs the State of Maharashtra