Dismissed

Imran Sohrab Chaudhary @ Ibran Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jan 2021WP/1409/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition challenged the quashing of an FIR. The High Court held that the FIR discloses an offence requiring investigation. It rejected the petition, refused quashing, and directed the Investigating Officer to expedite the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands rejected. The Investigating Officer is directed to expedite the investigation.

Imran Sohrab Chaudhary @ Ibran Khan Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed Laxmikant by Laxmikant G. Chandan G. Date: Chandan 2021.01.13 10:44:23 +0530

¶2

(12) cri.wp-1409.20.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1409 OF 2020

¶5

Imran Sohrab Chaudhary @
Ibran Khan: Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and ors.: Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner.
Mr. J P Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
MANISH PITALE, JJ
DATE :12th JANUARY 2021

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. He

¶12

submits that if the contents of the impugned FIR are read in its entirety, it
shows that the alleged offences have not been disclose. It is further submitted
that at the relevant time of the alleged incident, the Petitioner was at some
other place and he can prove it through the CCTV footage. It is submitted that
though the enough proof is submitted to the Investigating Officer showing that
at the relevant time the Petitioner was not at the place of the alleged incident,
the concerned Investigating Officer is not paying attention to the said material.
Therefore relying upon the pleadings in the Petition and the grounds taken
therein, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned FIR
may be quashed.

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

lgc

¶15

(12) cri.wp-1409.20.odt

¶16

2On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the
Respondent/State, relying upon the contents of the impugned FIR, would urge
that the alleged offences are disclosed and therefore needs further
investigation.

¶17

3Upon hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the
learned APP for the Respondent/State, and upon perusal of the contents of the
impugned FIR, it is crystal clear that an ingredient of alleged offences are
attracted, and consequently the alleged offences are disclosed. The defence of
the Petitioner, that he at was some other place at the relevant time of alleged
incident, cannot be considered at this stage. We are of the prima facie opinion
that from the contents of the impugned FIR the alleged offences are disclosed
and needs further investigation. No case is made out for quashing the
impugned FIR. The Writ Petition stands rejected.

¶18

4Since the impugned FIR is registered in the year 2016, the
concerned Investigating Officer is directed to expedite the investigation and
take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible.

¶19

5The observations made herein above are prima facie in nature and
confined to the adjudication of the present Writ Petition. The rejection of the
Writ Petition shall not be construed as an impediment to avail of an

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

lgc

¶22

(12) cri.wp-1409.20.odt

¶23

appropriate remedy in the event of filing of charge-sheet by the Investigating
Officer.

¶24

[MANISH PITALE, J][S. S. SHINDE , J]

¶25

3 of 3

¶26

lgc

Imran Sohrab Chaudhary @ Ibran Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Sohrab Chaudhary @ Ibran Khan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Pravin Sanghvi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramashish Gopal Gupta and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pushkaraj Shashikant Yellapurkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pushkaraj Shashikant Yellapurkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amit Amla and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.