The High Court of Bombay dismissed two Writ Petitions seeking quashing of FIRs registered for offences under IPC and POCSO. The Court held that it cannot sift through material or record findings of fact in writ jurisdiction, especially when offences were added later, and thus denied interdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 WP 3101-16 @ WP 660-17.doc-910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3101 OF 2016
Azim Munir Khan. ] … Petitioner Versus The Senior Inspector of Police, ] Kurla Police Station & Ors. ] … Respondents
ALONG WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.660 OF 2017
Rajesh Dinkar More. ] … Petitioner Versus The Senior Inspector of Police, ] Kurla Police Station & Anr. ] … Respondents
Mr. Imran Sheikh i/b Ruby Shaikh for Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3101 of 2016.
Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan for Petitioner in Writ Petition No.660 of 2017. Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for State in both Writ Petitions. Mr. S. R. Moray for Respondent No.2 in both Writ Petitions.
Mr. Mohan Patil, PI attached to Dharavi Police Station, present.
CORAM :- R. M. SAVANT & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE :- 11 APRIL, 2018
P. C. :-
FIR being C.R.No.127 of 2016 registered with the Kurla Police Station
URS
1 of 3
2 WP 3101-16 @ WP 660-17.doc-910
on 28/03/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Later on, Sections 376, 328, 354 and 386 read with Section 34 have been added as also the accused have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO').
URS 2 of 3
3 WP 3101-16 @ WP 660-17.doc-910
respect of two difference incidents. It is not possible for us in our writ jurisdiction to sift through the material and thereafter record findings based on facts. As indicated above, the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC as also the offences under the POCSO have been added later on. This is pursuant to the supplementary statement which has been recorded of the first informant. At this stage, it is, therefore, not possible for this Court to accede to the request of the Petitioners for interdiction in the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the FIRs. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.)
3 of 3
URS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction can quash FIRs based on alleged contradictions or improvements in informant statements regarding two different incidents.
Whether additions of new offences under IPC and POCSO after the initial FIR registration preclude quashing of the FIR in writ jurisdiction.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Azim Munir Khan
Rajesh Dinkar More
The Senior Inspector of Police, Kurla Police Station
R. M. Savant
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
