Allowed

Akhtar Hasan Rizvi v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2024WP/1975/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Local Court Order (LOC) issued against the petitioner by the EOW unit. The appellant sought quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the High Court allowed the petition and disposed of the writ petition and associated interim applications as the LOC was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Local Court Order (LOC) issued against the Petitioner; communication of quashing to the Immigration Authority within 48 hours.

Akhtar Hasan Rizvi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

 1/4 905 wp 1975 of 2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1975 OF 2023

¶4

Dr.Akhtar Hasan Rizvi

¶5

….Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.….Respondents

¶8

ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.14224 OF 2023
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2570 OF 2023
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3211 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1975 OF 2023

¶9

Mr.Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Mahesh Mishra i/b.
Ms.Priyanka B. Chavan, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr.D.P. Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

PI Babaram Shinde, Unit 5 EOW, Mumbai, present.

¶12

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 4^th APRIL 2024.

¶14

Digitally signed by RAJESHRI RAJESHRI PRAKASH PRAKASH AHER AHER Date: 2024.04.05 19:54:27 +0530

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

1 At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks

¶17

Rajeshri Aher

¶18

 2/4 905 wp 1975 of 2023.doc

¶19

leave to amend the prayer clause. Leave granted. Amendment to
be carried out forthwith, during the course of the day.

¶20

2The Petitioner, by this Petition preferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the LOC issued
against him at the behest of the Respondent No.1–EOW, in
connection with C.R.No.786 of 2022, registered with Vakola
Police Station, Mumbai, and subsequently transferred to EOW and
re-numbered as C.R.No.121 of 2022 with the EOW Unit 5,
Mumbai. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the LOC issued against
him at the behest of the Respondent No.1–EOW.

¶21

3Perused the Petition. The Petitioner, aged 81 years is
the director of M/s.Rizvi land Developments Private Limited,
Mumbai. An FIR being C.R.No.786 of 2022 was registered with
Vakola Police Station, Mumbai, as against the Petitioner and others
on 28th June, 2022 alleging offences punishable under Sections
409 and 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), and under
Sections 3, 4, 8 and 13 of The Maharashtra Ownership of Flats
(Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and

¶22

Rajeshri Aher

¶23

 3/4 905 wp 1975 of 2023.doc

¶24

Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”). The investigation in the said C.R.
was subsequently transferred to the EOW Unit 5, Mumbai, and
the C.R. was re-registered as CR.No.121 of 2022.

¶25

4It appears that an LOC was issued at the behest of the
Respondent No.1–EOW, Unit 5, Mumbai, as against the Petitioner
on 4th August, 2022. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was
permitted to travel on several occasions, pursuant to the various
orders passed by this Court, in as much as, the LOC was
suspended during the said period of travel. It is not in dispute that
the Respondent No.1 i.e. the EOW Unit 5, Mumbai, has filed
charge–sheet in the said case on 16th October 2023. Apart from
the aforesaid C.R., admittedly there is no other case registered as
against the Petitioner.

¶26

5Learned APP, on instructions of PI Babaram Shinde,
Unit 5 EOW, Mumbai, submits that since charge–sheet has been
filed, the Respondent No.1 i.e. EOW Unit 5, Mumbai, has no
objection to the quashing of the LOC issued at their behest, as
against the Petitioner.

¶27

Rajeshri Aher

¶28

 4/4 905 wp 1975 of 2023.doc

¶29

5In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned

¶30

APP on instructions, the LOC issued against the Petitioner at the
behest of Respondent No.1–EOW Unit 5, is quashed.

¶31

6The Respondent No.1 i.e. officer of the EOW, Unit 5,
Mumbai, to forthwith communicate the quashing of the LOC to
the Immigration Authority forthwith, and in any event, within 48
hours of the orders being uploaded.

¶32

7The Writ Petition is allowed and stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶33

8In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, all Interim
Applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶34

9All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶35

order.

¶36

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE J.

¶37

Rajeshri Aher

Akhtar Hasan Rizvi v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtar Hasan Rizvi 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

Kiran Kantilal Makwana Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raosaheb Damu Ghule Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raosaheb Damu Ghule Vs the State of Maharashtra

Saurabh Srivastava Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Dnyaneshwar Shantaram Rode Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anantha Narayanan Iyer Vs Union of India and Ors.