Disposed

Tushar Dileep Kothari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2021WP/1556/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition regarding the timing of an FIR registration for alleged cyber offences under the IT Act and IPC, the High Court of Bombay refused to entertain the petition on merits due to subsequent FIR registration but granted leave to withdraw the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; leave granted for petitioner to approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, with an order to decide within two weeks.

Tushar Dileep Kothari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

12_wp.1556.2021.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1556 OF 2021

¶5

Tushar Dileep Kothari … Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & another … Respondents

¶8

Mr.Vikramsingh Parmar for the Petitioner Ms.S.D. Shinde, APP, for Respondent – State

¶9

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &

¶10

MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED: APRIL 6, 2021 P.C.:

¶11

1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

¶12

on the date of freezing the accounts, First Information Report was not registered and, therefore, the action of the concerned police officer was not in accordance with law.

¶13

2. In response to the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned APP on the basis of written instructions, submits that now First Information Report No.6 of 2021 is registered on 10.3.2021 with the Cyber Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 498, 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code and under sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

12_wp.1556.2021.doc

¶16

3. Since the First Information Report is already registered, we are not inclined to entertain this petition on merits, however, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶17

4. In view of the above, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the petition so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Leave granted. The petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In case, appropriate

¶18

proceedings/application is filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, the said jurisdictional Magistrate shall decide the said proceedings/application in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, however, within two weeks from the date of filing such proceedings/application.

¶19

5. Writ Petition stands disposed off in the above terms.

¶20

(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶21

Page 2 of 2

Tushar Dileep Kothari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Dileep Kothari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikhil Suresh Rajput Vs the District Magistrate Jalgaon and Ors.

Aareshi Mohammed Khaja Pasha @ Aarisa Yunus Radde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anilkumar L. Gitte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashish Son of Ramchandra Paropate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunita Murarilal Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Murari Mangilal Agarwal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.