Dismissed

Balalakhandar Pallu Bhardwaj v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Jul 2022WP/1511/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court of Bombay rejected the petition filed by Balalakhandar Pallu Bhardwaj seeking to quash an FIR under various sections of the IPC and transfer investigation, holding that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and no exceptional case was established for quashing or transfer.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected. Prayer for quashing FIR and transfer of investigation denied.

Balalakhandar Pallu Bhardwaj Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Priya Soparkar 1 53 wp 1511-22-cr

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1511 OF 2022

¶4

PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR

¶5

Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2022.07.12 14:59:14 +0530

¶6

Balalakhandar Pallu Bhardwaj … Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents

¶9

Mr.Akhlak H. Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1/State.

¶10

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 5 JULY 2022.

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

By this petition, the Petitioner is seeking to quash the FIR No. 782 of 2021 dated 15^th December, 2021 registered at MHB Colony Police Station, Mumbai. In the alternative, Petitioner prays that the investigation of the crime be transferred to other police Station.

¶15

As regards to the prayer for quashing of the FIR is concerned, we note that the FIR is lodged under sections 326, 323, 504, 506, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant has stated that on

¶16

Priya Soparkar 2 53 wp 1511-22-cr

¶17

14^th December, 2021 at 8.30 p.m. the Petitioner assaulted the Respondent-complainant with a bamboo stick. The complainant has narrated the earlier incident in the complaint. The learned APP states that there are eye witnesses to the incident and the injury certificate is on record, which shows that injury was grievous. Having considered the record it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed at all by the perusal of the FIR and statement. This cannot be considered as an exceptional case for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction.

¶18

As regards the prayer for transfer of investigation, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that residents of locality have written letters in his support. It is rightly pointed out by the APP that prayer for transfer of investigation, at the behest of accused it is not ordinarily granted. The statement of witnesses are that the Petitioner exhibits criminal tendency and people of the locality are scared. In that context, so called letters of support of the resident will have to be viewed. Learned APP also states that the Petitioner is absconding in this case and in other cases, and charge-sheet is accordingly filed.

¶19

Considering these circumstances, no case is made out for grant of either of the reliefs.

¶20

Writ Petition is rejected.

¶21

(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Balalakhandar Pallu Bhardwaj v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balalakhandar Pallu Bhardwaj v. 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

Trupti Santosh Shinde W/O. Dr. Santosh Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vikas Suresh Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sarang Pandit Vs Vivek Pathak and Anr.

Aditya Kumar Jitendra Singh Vs Rupa Mayank Singh and Anr.

Rameshkumar Rajaram Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Taufiq Babu Tambe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra