Dismissed

Kiishor Mehta v. Rekha Sheth and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2015WP/898/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenged an interim order granting limited travel permission to the respondent, his sister, who faces trial for cheating and forgery. The High Court declined to set aside the order, directed her to seek travel permission from the trial court for future trips, and declined to expedite a pending case due to a pending quashing petition filed by the respon

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's plea to set aside the interim order on travel permission was dismissed; directed to approach trial Court for future travel.

Kiishor Mehta Vs Rekha Sheth and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

-4)WP898.15

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 898 OF 2015

Kishor Mehta

.. Petitioner

Versus

Rekha Sheth & Anr.

.. Respondents

Mr. Abad Ponda a/w Hemant Ingle i/b Prashant Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Rizwan Merchant with Ms. J. N. Shah i/b Daru Shah & Co., Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Ms. V. S. Mhaispurkar, Advocate for the respondent-State.

¶13

CORAM:-M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : -05/03/2015

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Not on board. Taken on board on being mentioned for production on the ground of urgency.

¶16

2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶17

3 After hearing the learned counsel and after having gone through the order in question, I am not inclined to set

1/3

-4)WP898.15

aside the said order inasmuch as limited permission is given to respondent No. 1 to travel abroad for the period between 6^th of March, 2015 to 16^th of March, 2015. It is noted that respondent No. 1 is real sister of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 is facing trial for the offences of forgery and cheating at the instance of the petitioner.

¶22

4 Mr. Ponda, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press for any other relief at this stage, in view of what has been expressed by the Court. However, he prays for expeditious hearing of Case No. 98/SW/2012. At this stage, I am informed that a writ petition is filed by respondent No. 1 for quashing the charge-sheet pending against her in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 40^th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai. Since the writ petition is pending, I am not inclined to pass any order for expeditious hearing. However, if any further development takes place, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court or trial Court for expeditious hearing of the pending cases.

¶23

2/3

¶24

5 As far as the question of respondent No. 1 travelling abroad again is concerned, this Court cannot pass any order in advance. It is directed that the respondent No. 1

¶25

shall take permission from the trial Court, whenever she wants to travel abroad.

¶26

md.saleem

¶27

3/3

Kiishor Mehta v. Rekha Sheth and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiishor Mehta v. Rekha Sheth and Anr.

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

Sneha Sandesh Ghosalkar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kalikumar @ Vijay Kishore Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mrs Kiran Deepak Verma (Metrimonial Name) Ms. Kiran K. Pande Vs Laxminarayan Bhawandin Verma and Ors.

Ajit Ramawadh Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Hemanth Meka Rao Vs Superintendent (a.E) and Anr.

Jangbahadur Singh Gujral Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.