Petitioner filed contempt petition alleging violation of orders directing transfer of bank amounts. Court held amounts were not seized under Cr.P.C. and reported to Magistrate, rendering subsequent order without jurisdiction. Contempt petition dismissed.
Contempt petition against the respondents was dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
911-CP-310-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL
Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.07.03 18:44:01 +0530
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 310 OF 2024
Shashank Manohar Joshi ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Valmiky Narvekar with Mr.Ateet Mhambrey i/b Mhambrey & Co. for the Petitioner.
Smt.V.R. Raje, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.1 – State.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 3rd JULY 2024
P.C.:
1 of 3
VAI
911-CP-310-2024.doc
action of the respondent by contending that the order dated 20.11.2023, was without jurisdiction, and therefore is non-est in the eyes of law, on account of which, no contempt in the eyes of law can be said to have been committed.
2 of 3
VAI
911-CP-310-2024.doc
20.11.2023 were lying, had been frozen by the banks upon orders being passed by the Investing Officer. The Nodel Officers i.e. respondent nos.2 to 6, are not the accused in CR No.36 of 2023, in which the aforesaid orders have been passed. Section 457 of Cr.P.C. applies to property, which is seized by the police officer under the Cr.P.C. and reported to the Magistrate. It is only in respect of the property, as seized under Section 457 (1) of Cr.P.C. and reported to the Magistrate that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked. Admittedly the amounts in the aforesaid bank accounts were not seized and reported to the Magistrate, on account of which the subsequent order dated 20.11.2023, contempt of which is being alleged, cannot be said to be within the jurisdiction of Magistrate under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. That being the position, in my considered opinion contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked. The petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
3 of 3
VAI
1 issue framed by the court
Whether contempt jurisdiction can be invoked when the impugned order under Section 457 Cr.P.C. directed transfer of amounts not frozen or reported to the Magistrate by the police officer.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vasant Andrao Idhol
State of Maharashtra
AVINASH G. GHAROTE
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
