Dismissed

Ketan Gunwantrai Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Nov 2016WP/2441/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three writ petitions seeking quashing of FIRs. The court held that it is slow to quash complaints due to police investigation rights and did not quash them, reserving rights for future proceedings if a charge sheet is filed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to take appropriate proceedings if a charge sheet is filed and to apply for anticipatory bail uninfluenced by the dismissal.

Ketan Gunwantrai Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

spb/

¶2

902wp2427-2413-2441.13.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 2427 OF 2013

¶5

Harish Pannalal Shah … Petitioner.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents. ---

¶7

WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 2413 OF 2013

¶8

Basagond Satyapa Kadoli … Petitioner.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents. --- WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 2441 OF 2013

¶10

Ketan Gunwantrai Shah … Petitioner.

¶11

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents. ---

¶12

Mr. Anil G. Lalla a/w. Mr. Karan Mehta & Ms.Beerta H. Bajwa i/by Lalla & Lalla for the Petitioner in all the Petitions. Mr. F. R.Shaikh, APP for the State.

¶13

Mr. Bhupendra Parekh, Respondent No.2- in-person.

1/3

Borey

spb/

902wp2427-2413-2441.13.odt

¶19

CORAM : V. M. KANADE AND Ms.NUTAN D.SARDESSAI,JJ.

¶20

DATE : 22^nd NOVEMBER, 2016 P.C. :

¶21

1 Heard the learned appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in all the above petitions and Respondent No.2 who is appearing-in-person.

¶22

2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the order passed by this court dated 26^th April, 2012 in Writ Petition no. 1472 of 2012. He further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 had obtained the order by suppressing certain facts from this court. He submitted that, therefore, the FIR which has been registered pursuant to the said order is liable to be quashed.

¶23

3 It is not in dispute that the offence under sections 420, 465, 467,468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the Petitioners. It is well settled that this court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution read with section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is very slow in quashing the criminal complaints because the police have a right to investigate and submit report. We are, therefore, not inclined to quash the complaints, reserving the right of petitioners to take out appropriate proceedings, in the event the chargesheet is filed. The Petitioners are also at liberty to

¶24

2/3

¶25

Borey

¶26

spb/ 902wp2427-2413-2441.13.odt

¶27

take out applications for anticipatory bail. If such an application is filed, the same may be decided on merits, uninfluenced of the fact that these petitions for quashing the FIR are dismissed by this court.

¶28

4 The writ petitions are dismissed in the above terms.

¶29

(Ms.NUTAN D.SARDESSAI,J) (V.M.KANADE,J)

¶30

3/3

¶31

Borey

Ketan Gunwantrai Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ketan Gunwantrai Shah 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

Nitin Anant Kshirsagar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Juhu Citzens Welfare Group and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 14 Ors.

Sanjay Ratan Bhakta Vs the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shivaji Sopan Jawale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jason Nath Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Zabihullah Safiullah Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.