Disposed

Krushna S/O. Chandrakant Ghule and 3 Others v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Pso, Ps Malkapur City, Tah. Malkapur Dist. Buldhana and Another.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2024WP/99/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Section 91 CrPC summons directing them to deposit Rs.1.8 crore with police. The court, citing its earlier order quashing an identical notice by the same Investigating Officer, deprecated the practice and quashed the impugned summon.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summon under Section 91 CrPC dated 16.01.2024 quashed and set aside.

Krushna S/O. Chandrakant Ghule and 3 Others Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:11117-DB

¶2

1 928 wp 99.24

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 99/2024

¶5

(Krushna s/o Chandrakant Ghule & ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr.)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for petitioners. Mrs. K.H. Bhondge, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶8

CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 04/10/2024.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The petitioner has called in question the impugned summon issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(“Code”), wherein the Investigating Officer of some other crime has directed the petitioner to deposit sum of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- with the Police. It is argued that Section 91 of the Code does not empower to issue direction to deposit money.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for petitioners has placed on record the order of this Court dated 28.06.2024 passed in Criminal Application (APPW) No. 33/2024 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 101/2024, wherein similar issue has been dealt by this Court. Co-incidentally, the same Investigating Officer has issued similar notice to the then petitioner requiring them to deposit money relating to other

¶13

2 928 wp 99.24

¶14

transaction. This Court came heavily on the Police about adopting this method and by deprecating, has quashed the impugned communication. There can be no justification for Police to summon unrelated person that too with a direction to deposit cash which is sort of recovery.

¶15

In view of above, impugned communication does not stand to reason. In the circumstances, impugned summon issued under Section 91 of the Code dated 16.01.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶16

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶17

( MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶18

Gohane

Krushna S/O. Chandrakant Ghule and 3 Others v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Pso, Ps Malkapur City, Tah. Malkapur Dist. Buldhana and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krushna S/O. Chandrakant Ghule and 3 Others v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Pso, Ps Malkapur City, Tah. Malkapur Dist. Buldhana and Another.

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

Jitendra S/O Shivaji Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Deulgaon Raja Dist.Buldhana and Another

Vrushabhh @ Vrushikesh @Jabba Umeshrao Wankhede vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Home Dept. (Spl) Mantralaya,Mumbai and Another

Ashok S/O Panjumal Chelani vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Additional Chief Secretary Home Dep. (Spl). and 2 Others

Kishore Yadavrao Ruikar and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Dattapur Tq.Dhamangaon Railway Dist.Amravati and Another

Dashrath Dharmaji Debur Vs Sepecial Police Inspector General Prison ( East Region), Nagpur and Another

Dhanraj Pralhad Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso., P.S. Murtizapur Rural, Dist. Akola