In a writ petition challenging the naming in an F.I.R., the Bombay High Court held that it is not a proper stage to interfere given incomplete investigations. The Court refused to presume facts regarding the Petitioner's role or association with Monil Noorani, disposing of the petition while keeping contentions open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
3.wp.1217.13.doc
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1217 OF 2013
Faizal Anwar Noorani. ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. ....Respondents
Mr. S. M. Mirajkar for the Petitioner. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G. S. PATEL, J.J.
DATED : AUGUST 29, 2013.
P.C.:
Heard Mr. Mirajkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.
1 of 2
3.wp.1217.13.doc
Shephali
for us to go into a factual aspect as to whether the Petitioner was at any time associate of Monil as claimed by the complainant or that as urged by the Petitioner, he has been named as an accused only because he is brother of Monil.
(G. S. PATEL, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in the matter at the initial stage of investigation when facts are incomplete.
Whether the F.I.R. prima facie discloses a cognizable offence against the Petitioner based on his association with Monil Noorani.
Faizal Anwar Noorani
The State of Maharashtra
S. C. Dharmadikari
G. S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
