Disposed

Raghunath Murlidhar Khade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Sept 2014WP/697/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash a letter issued in connection with an investigation into offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 12B IPC registered at Barkamba Road Police Station, New Delhi. The Court found it lacked jurisdiction because the FIRs were registered in Delhi and disposed of the petition without hearing merits.

What did the court decide?

None; petition disposed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Raghunath Murlidhar Khade Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP. 697-14

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 697 OF 2014

¶5

Raghunath M. Khade ... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents ***

¶6

Mr. Kiran Joshi, for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent - State.

¶7

¶8

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & P. D. KODE, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2014

¶9

PC.

¶10

By this petition which is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, Petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the letter dated 11.2.2010 issued by Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner. It appears that on 16.1.2009 FIRs have been registered against the Petitioner vide FIR Nos. 179/2009 and 180/2009 with Barkamba Road Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 420 and 12B of the I. P. Code and during the course of investigation of the said offences, the impugned letter has been issued to the Petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the property is situate in Kalyan. The vendee has paid an amount of Rs. 31 lakhs to the Petitioner. However, sale-deed has not been executed since the vendee did not approach him. It is submitted that

¶11

1 / 2

¶12

WP. 697-14

¶13

he is willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 31 lakhs in this Court. It is submitted that he is a practicing doctor at Kalyan, and as such, this Court should entertain this petition.

¶14

We are of the view that we will not be in a position to entertain this petition, since FIRs have been registered at Barkhamba Road Police Station, New Delhi and this Court will not have jurisdiction to try and entertain this petition. Petitioner, therefore, will have to approach the appropriate Court in Delhi for seeking the relief, which he has claimed in this petition. All contentions raised by the Petitioner in this petitioner are kept open. It is clarified that we have not entertained this petition only because we are of the view that we have no jurisdiction to entertain this petition since FIRs are registered at New Delhi. With this observation, writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Vinayak Halemath

¶16

2 / 2

Raghunath Murlidhar Khade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath Murlidhar Khade 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

Jitendra Yashawant Kedare Vs the State Maharashtra

Shankar Hanumanta Santi and Ors. Vs the Senior Police Inspector and Ors.

Mohini Naraindas Kamawani Vs Sr. Police Inspector and Ors.

Viom Networks Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod Pandurang Pisal Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Annapurna Consumer Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.