← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3619/2014other disposed off

Kunal Vallabhadas Chotalia ANR. v. The State Of Maharashtra

2016-02-02Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ranjit More.2 pages

Sr.No.916 Wp 3619.14 SSK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3619 OF 2014 Kunal Vallabhdas Chotalia and anr.

....Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and ors.

....Respondents Mr. H. S. S.Murthy i/b. Mr. Abhishek Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State.

Ms. Trupti Surve i/b. Mr. Sahil Mahajan, advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

DATED : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2016.

P.C.:

The petition is filed for the following reliefs : (a) Rule Nisi be issued;

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ thereby directing the Respondents to forthwith produce said Shri Ratilal Govindji Chotalia before this Hon'ble Court;

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing the Respondent No.1 to transfer the investigation to senior officer of the Crime Branch and to Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

Sr.No.916 Wp 3619.14 further forthwith treat the various complaints at Exhibit "A", "B", "C", "D" & "E" -Collectively to the petition as FIR and lodge complaint accordingly u/s 344, 347, 363, 368, 408, 420, 427 along with other applicable sections revealed in police investigations;

So far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the petitioners do not dispute that Ratilal Govindji Chotalia has expired on 30th August, 2015. Therefore, the relief claimed under the said clause will not survive. As far as relief claimed under prayer clause (c) is concerned, the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. 2.

Needless to mention that we have not gone into the merits of the petition. The petitioners are always at liberty to adopt appropriate remedy available under law.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) Shubhada S Kadam 2/2