Disposed

Polygenta Technologies Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Oct 2016WP/93/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Polygenta Technologies Limited approached the Bombay High Court under Criminal Writ Petition No.93 of 2016 seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the police to register an FIR regarding a complaint against it. The court observed that the petitioner has a specific statutory remedy available under Section 154(3) of the CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take steps under Section 154(3) CrPC; merits kept open.

Polygenta Technologies Limited Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/2

¶2

wp-93-16.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.93 OF 2016

¶5

Polygenta Technologies Limited ….. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents

¶6

Mr.Niranjan Mundargi a/w Mr.Ranjit Shetty and Mr. Anurag Mankar i/b M/s. Argus Partners for the Petitioner. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA &

¶8

A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 19 OCTOBER 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a complaint with the Senior Inspector of Police, Andheri Police Station running into 283 pages including annexures. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station has not taken any action on the basis of the said complaint. The only prayer in the Petition reads thus:

¶12

(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent No.2 to direct the appropriate investigating agency, preferably the Unit of Economic Offences Wing to register the First Information Report in view of the complaint at Exhibit “B-Colly” hereinabove of the Petitioner Company and further be pleased to direct the concerned agency to

1/2

Uday.P.Kambli

2/2

wp-93-16.doc

investigate into the same and submit the appropriate report in the interest of justice;

¶18

If according to the case of the Petitioner, the Officer-in-Charge of the Andheri Police Station has not registered the First Information Report, the Petitioner has a remedy available under sub-section (3) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶19

In view of availability of the said remedy, it is not necessary to entertain this Criminal Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to take steps in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. All contentions on merits are kept open.

¶20

(A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶21

2/2

¶22

Uday.P.Kambli

Polygenta Technologies Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polygenta Technologies Limited 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

Mayur Bharat Gade Vs Babasaheb Anandrao Gade and Anr.

Parag Suresh Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Simeen Naeem Chougle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Contract Advertising India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited and 2 Ors.

Shri.Rajesh Chhaganlal Patwa Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vaibhav Vijay Poddar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.