Dismissed

Kamal Ahmed S/O. Mohmed v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2014WP/3694/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition dismissed. The Court held that under Article 226, it cannot appreciate material to conclude no case is made out as prima facie FIR discloses a cognizable offence. Writ for quashing C.R. No. 21 of 2013 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition for quashing of C.R. No. 21 of 2013 dismissed; right to file discharge application reserved.

Kamal Ahmed S/O. Mohmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2014)

(WP 3694 of 2014)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 3694 OF 2014

¶6

Kamal Ahmed S/o. Mohamed Mustafa Chaudhary ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. …Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr.S.G. Kudle for Petitioner Mrs.P.H. Kantharia -APP for the State

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

DATE : OCTOBER 7, 2014

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

¶14

The Petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing the C.R. No. 21 of 2013 which is pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Panvel. A complaint has been registered against the Petitioner and others for the offences punishable under section 201, 146, 149, 392, 395, 412, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken us through the various documents in support of his submission and it is submitted that a false and frivolous case has been registered against the Petitioner and the police have helped the complainant with a malafide intention of implicating the Petitioner.

1/2

(WP 3694 of 2014)

We are afraid that at this stage we cannot go into all the documents on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. This Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot appreciate the material on record for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that no case has been made out by the Petitioner. Perusal of the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of cognizable offence. Hence, writ petition is dismissed, reserving the right of the Petitioner of filing an application for discharge in the Trial Court. All contentions raised by the Petitioner in this petition are kept open. We must clarify that we have not given any opinion on merits and only dismissed the writ petition for quashing the FIR while exercising our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Vaishali Tikam

¶20

2/2

Kamal Ahmed S/O. Mohmed v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Ahmed S/O. Mohmed v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Padmakar Sriram Bhatbhat and Ors. Vs Dr. Piyush T. Mehta and Anr.

Krishna Satish Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Romi Mahendra Chaurasiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mukesh Gupta @ Joshi S/O Ramesh Gupta Vs the Director General of Police and Ors.

Ravi Kripalsingh Talreja Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajesh Jagjivandas Thakkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.