Dismissed

Bipin Bhimsen Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2020WP/4156/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition under Article 226, the High Court refused to quash an FIR. The court held that a prima facie case was made out on the facts presented in the FIR, warranting continued investigation without judicial intervention.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the FIR was dismissed; writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was deemed fit to be exercised against the petitioner.

Bipin Bhimsen Jadhav Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

Digitally signed by Shagufta Q. Shagufta Pathan Date: Q. Pathan 2020.09.1817:00:03 +0530

¶2

8-wp-4156-2019.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4156 OF 2019

¶4

Bipin Bhimsen Jadhav ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. S. P. Chaudhari, Legal Aid Appointed Advocate for the Petitioner Dr. F. R. Shaikh, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1-State

¶6

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & M. S. KARNIK, JJ. FRIDAY, 18th SEPTEMBER 2020

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

2 By this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶10

of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of C.R. No. 67 of 2019 registered with the Wadala Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354(D) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations as against the petitioner are false and baseless and that the complainant has filed a false case with the sole intention of humiliating the petitioner. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations as

1/2

SQ Pathan

8-wp-4156-2019.doc

against the petitioner and that the false case will cause tremendous hardship to the petitioner, in the event, the FIR is not quashed.

¶16

4 Learned A.P.P opposed the petition. She submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint/FIR.

¶17

5 Perused the FIR lodged by the complainant i.e. respondent No. 2. In the said complaint/FIR dated 9^th April 2019, the respondent No.2Sheetal Uday Khaire (complainant) has specifically, and in detail, set out the acts of the petitioner i.e. with respect to outraging of her modesty.

¶18

6 Having perused the FIR, a prima facie case is made out as against the petitioner. Accordingly, we do not deem it fit to intervene in the said case in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

7 It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie for the purpose of deciding this petition.

¶20

8 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed by the Senior Private Secretary of this Court.

¶21

M. S. KARNIK, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶22

2/2

¶23

SQ Pathan

Bipin Bhimsen Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Bhimsen Jadhav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Avadheshkumar Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra Shivaji Tawate Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.