Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M. S. Karnik, N. R. Borkar, JJ
Sashidhar Jagdishan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir quashing sought over trust fund misuse allegations (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments on fir validity and abuse of process (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 3. inherent powers prevent fir abuse under section 482 (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 4. loan recovery history shows repeated failed challenges (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 5. allegations civil; prior orders bar multiplicity (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 6. complaint counterblast lacking offence ingredients (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 7. quash firs to avert recovery process abuse (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 8. petition firs quashed; cbi transfer dismissed (Para 77 , 78 , 79) |
JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :
1. Since common issues are involved in respect of the same FIR and by and large similar allegations are levelled against the petitioners, all these writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Writ Petition Nos.3205 of 2025, 3215 of 2025, 3216 of 2025, 3217 of 2025 were reserved for judgment on 08/10
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
