Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar v. the State and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Jun 2018WP/4738/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the submission that Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act and Section 23 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act bar police cognizance of IPC offenses involving forgery. The Court held that the offenses under IPC are not covered by the respective Acts. It denied relief as the charge-sheet was already filed, deeming it not a fit case to exercise Writ Jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed as the charge-sheet had already been filed, and it was not a fit case to exercise Writ Jurisdiction.

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State and Anr. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

22-wp.4738.17 .doc

1/3

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4738 OF 2017

¶6

Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus The State and Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Harihar Bhave a/w Mr.H.G.Khambete, i/b Bhave & Co., for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.

¶9

Mr.H.G.Vijaykumar, Respondent No.2 present in person.

¶10

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 27^th JUNE, 2018

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked for quashing of

¶14

the FIR being C.R.No.262 of 2016, originally registered with the Kherwadi Police Station, Mumbai, (now transferred to Vakola Police Station, Mumbai), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

22-wp.4738.17 .doc

¶16

2/3

¶17

The learned APP Mr.Saste states that the Petitioner is an absconding accused as he has not participated in the investigation. To extricate the Petitioner from the said situation, the learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.Bhave would contend that the police could not have taken cognizance of the offence involving allegations as regards forgery of the Aadhaar Card and the Birth Certificate in view of the bar contained in Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act, 2017 and Section 23 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

¶18

We are not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner having regard to the said provisions i.e. Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act, 2017 and Section 23 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. It is required to be noted that the offences alleged against the Petitioner are ones under Sections 420, 467 of the Indian Penal Code amongst other offences. Though they may relate to the Aadhaar Card and the Birth Certificate, the said offences are not covered by the provisions of the respective Acts.

¶19

22-wp.4738.17 .doc

¶20

3/3

¶21

In view of the fact that insofar as the FIR being C.R.No.262 of 2016 is concerned, the charge-sheet has already been filed, having regard to the nature of the allegations against the Petitioner, we, do not deem this a fit case to exercise our Writ Jurisdiction.

¶22

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶24

(R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Rajesh Kumar v. the State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. the State and Anr.

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

Harshawardhan Shrikrishna Dole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajaram Bacharam Yesre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jahid Ali Nashi Ali Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhavana Harishchandra Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagannath Ambadas Pawar and Ors. Vs Bharat Bhagwan Pawar and Anr.

Shyam Nagu Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.