Raju Grover v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR
17 wp 2787.17.(group) doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2016 Mrs. Raju Grover ....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and anr.
....Respondents with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2802 OF 2016 Universal Trustees Pvt. Ltd.
....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and anr.
....Respondents with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2858 OF 2016 Aarti Grover ....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and anr.
....Respondents Mr. Girish S. Godbole along with Madhu Gododia i/b. Naik Naik & Co., advocates for the petitioner in writ petition Nos.2787 of 2016 and 2858 of 2016.
Mr. Girish S. Godbole i/b. Amol J. Phoujdar, advocate for the petitioner in writ petition No.2802 of 2016.
Mr. J. P. Yagnik, learned APP for the State.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : 15th JUNE, 2017.
P. C. :
Heard the learned counsel and learned APP appearing for the respective parties.
2.
All the petitioners in the above petitions are the accused in the subject FIR viz. CR No.118 of 2016 registered with Cuffe Parade Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, Shubhada S Kadam 1/2
17 wp 2787.17.(group) doc 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All the above petitions are filed for quashing the subject FIR. 3.
Mr. Yagnik, learned APP, on instructions, states that the investigation into the subject CR is completed and, thereafter, the Investigating Officer has filed "B" Summary Report before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court at Esplanade, Mumbai. In support of his statement, he has tendered a report dated 15th June, 2017, of the ACP, Cuffe Parade Police Station. The said report is taken on record. It supports the contention of the learned APP.
4.
In the light of the above, the grievance of the petitioners raised in their respective petitions, will not survive for consideration at this stage. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed off. 5.
It is expressly made clear that the learned magistrate shall decide the "B" Summary Report independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the present order. Needless to mention that in the event of passing an adverse order by the learned magistrate, the petitioners are always at liberty to challenge the same before an appropriate forum.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.] Shubhada S Kadam 2/2