Dismissed

Shashikant Raghunath Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Sept 2014WP/3296/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition sought quashing of an FIR under Section 420 IPC. The High Court held that prima facie ingredients of the offence were disclosed. It refused to evaluate documentary evidence or correctness of averments, directing the petitioner to face trial or seek discharge.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; FIR and charge-sheet pending before the Trial Court are not quashed.

Shashikant Raghunath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

(Wp 3296 of 2013)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 3296 OF 2013

¶6

Shashikant Raghunath Patil ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶9

¶10

Mr. Nazmi i/b. Jayesh Jain for Petitioner Mrs. M.M.Deshmukh -APP for the State ***********

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE , & P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2014

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing of FIR which has been registered against the Petitioner, who is a builder by profession for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Several arguments have been made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.. It is submitted that though the petition was pending and this fact was brought to the notice of the Trial Court, the Trial Court proceeded to frame the charge. Firstly, it is submitted that the said order of framing of charge may be set aside.

1/3

(Wp 3296 of 2013)

In our view, so far as this submission is concerned, the same is without any substance. The petition is pending in this Court since 2013 and no interim order has been granted by this Court and, as such, we do not find any default with the order of framing of charge framed by the Trial Court. It was always open for the petition to challenge the said order by filing a revision application in the Sessions Court.

¶20

It is then submitted that the allegations made by the Complainant in the complaint are patently false and this can be demonstrate through various documents. We are afraid that at this stage, while exercising our writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot consider the documentary evidence which is relied upon by the Petitioner.

¶21

We have perused the complaint. Perusal of the complaint, prima facie, disclose that the ingredients of offence punishable under section 420 are clearly made out from the averments made therein. The law on quashing of complaint by the High court either under section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is quite well settled. This Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise the averments made by the Complainant in the complaint, nor come to any definite conclusion on the basis of the statements made by the Complainant and other witnesses. It is always open for the Petitioner either to prefer an application for discharge or face the trial and disprove the case of the prosecution.

¶22

We are, therefore, unable to accept the submissions made by the Petitioner. We are not inclined to quash the FIR or charge-sheet

2/3

(Wp 3296 of 2013)

Vaishali Tikam

which are filed by the prosecution. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. The Trial Court may not be influenced by any observations made by us while deciding the application.

¶28

[P.D. KODE,J.]

¶29

[ V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶30

3/3

Shashikant Raghunath Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Raghunath Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Gowardhan Jagannath Chavarepatil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Seema Dattatraya Phuge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Ram Son of Shankar Ram Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bharat C. Somani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mukul Suryakan Gujar Vs the Cheif Election Commissioner and 3 Others

Suhasini Sukhdeo Kanade Vs Mugdha Mangesh Pangam and 2 Ors.