REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

B.S.KHATRI (COL.) Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BALALSUBRAMANIAM V. STATE BY SI POLICE T.N. [REFERRED TO]
SANMUKHSINGH V. KIND [REFERRED TO]
GITA RAM KALSY V. MATHURA DASS [REFERRED TO]
NALINAKHYA VS. SHYAM SUNDER HALDAR [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JLIRNINA MASJID MERCARA VS. KODIMANIANDI A DEVIAH [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA PRASAD SINGH VS. HARI NATH SINGH IN ALL THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
PATEL LALJIBHAI SOMABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
K KARUNAKARAN VS. T V EACHARA WARRTER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. J A C SALDANHA:J A C SALDANHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. HEMAREDDY ALIAS VEMAREDDY [REFERRED TO]
GOPALAKRISHNA MENON VS. D RAJA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SURESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
AHADEV BAPUJI MAHAJAN DEAD VS. ATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. PIRTHI CHAND [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. O P SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT SINGH VS. BALBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI KUMAR VS. MAHESH KUMAR BHADA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAJ SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SACHIDA NAND SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. O C KUTTAN :STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
SATVINDER KAUR VS. STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. SAXONS FARMS [REFERRED TO]
M S AHLAWAT VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR M GALANI VS. ASHOK N ADVANI [REFERRED TO]
M KRISHNA VS. VIJAY SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MOTISINGH GAMBHIRSING VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
VINDHYA BASINI PRASAD VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
BASAPPA RAMAPPA NAIK VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
MURUGESAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. AVINASH P BHONSLE [REFERRED TO]
DILIPKUMAR J JAIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SARDUL SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY all these petitions the petitioners, who are accused persons in the original complaint filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay have challenged the order passed by that learned magistrate directing the investigation under section 156 (3) of the Criminal procedure Code.

(2.) ALL these petitions arise out of one criminal complaint filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade in Bombay, which is registered as case No. 12/1 85 R/2003. It is filed by one Stany Saldanha, authorised representative of M/s. Smay Investments Limited, Bombay. All these petitioners in these petitions are the accused named in this complaint. All of them seek quashing of the complaint as also quashing of the order passed by the learned magistrate directing investigation under section 156 (3) of the Cri. P. C. Since all these facts giving rise to these petitions, flow from one complaint and the parties to these complaints are common, all these petitions are being so disposed of by this common judgment. It will cover and dispose of all these petitions filed in this regard.

(3.) THE original complaint as filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, complains of offences under sections 120-B, 420, 464, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, being committed by the accused persons named in the complaint. Perusing the complaint, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing investigation under section 156 (3) of Cri. P. C. by the economic offences wing, Crime Branch CID, Bombay. Issuance of this order as also the original complaint are sought to be quashed by these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Click here to view full judgment.

B S KHATRI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address