Dismissed

Faisal Latif Shaikh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2020APL/848/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Bombay dismissed an application challenging an order directing issuance of process. The court held that sufficient grounds existed based on the complainant's detailed pleadings and verified statement on oath, rendering cited precedents of assistance irrelevant. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the order directing issuance of process was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merits.

Faisal Latif Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1-APL-848-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.848 OF 2019

¶5

FAISAL LATIF SHAIKH AND ORS)...APPLICANTS

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.)...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.Shaikh Ejaaz Noor Mohammad, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.R.M.Pethe, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶9

Mr.Rameshwar Gite, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1By this petition, the petitioner/accused is challenging the
order dated 19th April 2017 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nashik, directing issuance of process for
offences punishable under Sections 352, 354, 323, 504, 506 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

avk 1/4

¶13

1-APL-848-2019.doc

¶14

2Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/accused. He argued that if money remained to be paid
for seven months, it could have remained to be paid for some
more months also and the case in hand is an example of extortion
of money. He argued that averments made in the private
complaint are not in tune with earlier written complaint submitted
by the original complainant to the Police Station Officer, Mumbai
Naka Police Station, Nashik. He also drew my attention to report
of non-cognizable case made by the petitioner/ accused on 12th
June 2016. With this, it is argued that the complaint came to be
lodged after inordinate delay of three months from the date of
incident and the averments made therein are not sufficient to
proceed further in the matter. Reliance is placed on the judgment
in the matter of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Professor

¶15

R.K.Vijayasarathy and Another vs. Sudha Seetharam and Another1

¶16

as well as that of Division Bench of this court in the matter of Dilip

¶17

Uttam Lomate vs. State of Maharashtra2. It is argued that the

¶18

complainant was not examined on oath and mere verification

¶19

1 2019 SCC Online SC 208

¶20

2 2019 SCC Online Bom 979

¶21

avk 2/4

¶22

1-APL-848-2019.doc

¶23

statement came to be recorded. It is urged that the order
directing issuance of process is an unreasoned order and
therefore, it needs to be set aside as nothing could be yielded by
prosecuting the petitioner/ original accused.

¶24

3As against this, on behalf of the respondent/ original
complainant it is argued that detailed averments are made in the
complaint and the petition itself is not maintainable because of
inordinate delay in approaching this court. It is argued that the
order directing issuance of process came to be passed on 19th April
2017 whereas petition came to be filed in July 2019.

¶25

4I have considered the submissions so advanced and

¶26

perused the private criminal complaint so also the order directing
issuance of process for offences stated in foregoing paragraphs of
this order. The process came to be issued after recording
verification statement of the complainant on oath.

¶27

avk 3/4

¶28

1-APL-848-2019.doc

¶29

5Requirement for passing order directing issuance of process
is finding of sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. In
the case in hand, detailed pleadings of complainant made in the
complaint makes out offences for which the process came to be
issued. Omissions or contradictions in earlier communications are
subject matter of defence during trial. There is no necessity to
give detailed reasons in order directing issuance of process.
Ultimately, the complaint was gaining corroboration from
verification statement made by the complainant on oath. In the
light of these observations, cited judgments are of no assistance to
the petitioner/ accused. It cannot be said that no sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the accused were made out by the
complainant.

¶30

6The petition is devoid of merits and therefore is

¶31

dismissed.

¶32

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶33

Arti V. Khatate

¶34

avk 4/4

¶35

Digitally signed by Arti V. Khatate Date: 2020.01.22 16:58:33 +0530

Faisal Latif Shaikh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faisal Latif Shaikh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tushar Dilip Sampat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajmal Amarchand Jain Vs Mangal Murti Developers Private Limited and Ors.

Suvarna Prashant Salve Vs Vimal Pandit Salve and Anr.

Gopal Gundu Sutar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kaushalya R.Sampat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra