Bombay High Court
DHIRAJ VISHWANATH KOLI (INTERVENER)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The magistrate’s order rejecting the ‘B‑Summary Report’ and the Section 169 report was erroneous and must be quashed, and the reports should be accepted, resulting in discharge of the accused.
Summary
The petition was filed by accused Rajendra R. Chaturvedi seeking acceptance of a ‘B‑Summary Report’ filed by the State CID, which concluded that the informant’s complaint was false and recommended dropping the proceedings. The Metropolitan Magistrate had rejected the CID’s request to discharge the accused under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and ordered continuation of the case. The petitioner, along with interveners, argued that the magistrate’s order was contrary to the investigation findings and that the summary report and Section 169 report should be accepted. The Court examined the record, noted that the investigating agency found no material against the accused, and held that the magistrate erred in refusing to accept the reports. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 30 January 2013, accepted the ‘B‑Summary Report’ and the Section 169 report, and disposed of the related criminal applications. The writ petition and revision application were allowed, and the pending criminal applications were dismissed as they no longer survived.
Issues considered
- Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in rejecting the State CID’s ‘B‑Summary Report’ and the report under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
- Whether the court should quash the order dated 30 January 2013 and accept the investigation reports, thereby discharging the accused.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 169
Subjects
- Section 169
- Criminal Procedure Code
- B‑Summary Report
- Writ Petition
- Quash Order
- Discharge of Accused
- Investigation Report
Judgment
KSG 16-WP-993-2013.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.993 OF 2013
Rajendra Rameshchandra Chaturvedi … Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr … Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.437 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.993 OF 2013
Dhiraj Vishwanath Koli … Applicant
In the matter Between :
Rajendra Rameshchandra Chaturvedi … Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr … Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.142 OF 2013
The State of Maharashtra … Applicant
V/s.
Mohammad Nisar Mohammad Jafar Shaikh & Ors … Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.404 OF 2013
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.142 OF 2013
Dhiraj Vishwanath Koli … Applicant
In the matter Between :
The State of Maharashtra … Applicant
V/s.
Mohammad Nisar Mohammad Jafar Shaikh & Ors … Respondents
1/4
KSG 16-WP-993-2013.doc
_______________________________________
Mr. Girish Kulkarni, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. M.G. Shukla for the Petitioner in
WP/993/2013.
Ms. S.D. Khot a/w Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for the Intervener in
APPW/437/2013 and 404/2013.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra.
Mr. Shankar Pawale, P.I. attached to C.I.D., Kokan Bhawan, New Mumbai.
_______________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATE : 27th JULY, 2026
P.C. :
1) The Writ Petition No.993 of 2013, is filed by Accused No.5-
Rajendra R. Chaturvedi in CR No.42 of 2007, which has culminated in to
C.C. No.128/B-SUM/2009, (Old No. CC.No. 23/SUM./08), for acceptance of
‘B-Summary Report’ dated 13th February, 2008, filed by the investigating
Officer attached to the State C.I.D., Kokan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai.
1.1) The Criminal Application No.437 of 2013 and Criminal
Application No.404 of 2013, which are filed by Accused No.2 for
intervention, inter alia, requesting this Court to accept the said ‘B-Summary
Report’ and quash the Order dated 30th January, 2013, passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, (10th Court), Andheri, Mumbai.
1.2) Criminal Revision Application No.142 of 2013, is filed by the
investigating Officer of State C.I.D. seeking similar reliefs i.e. (i) to accept the
said ‘B-Summary Report’ and (ii) to quash and set aside the Order dated 30 th
January, 2013.
2/4
KSG 16-WP-993-2013.doc
2) Heard Mr.Kulkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner,
Ms. Khot, learned Advocate for the Intervener and Mr.Yagnik, learned A.P.P.
for the State. Perused entire record.
3) Perusal of record and particularly the impugned Order dated 30th
January, 2013, clearly indicates that, after completion of investigation of the
said crime the police reached to a conclusion that, the informant had filed
false case against the accused persons. Therefore after completion of
investigation, the investigating Officer had filed the said ‘B-Summary Report’
(with prosecution) against the concerned persons. The said report requests
the proceedings against the accused persons be dropped as, on earlier
occasion, a report under Section 169 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 had
been filed. Record indicates that, the learned Magistrate instead of accepting
the said ‘B-Summary Report’, rejected the prayer of the State C.I.D. to
discharge some of the accused persons under Section 169 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973.
4) Perusal of record further indicates that, the impugned Order is
contrary to the evidence collected by the investigating agency during the
investigation of the said crime and learned Magistrate ought to have
accepted the Summary Report along with report under Section 169 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed by the investigating agency. Notably the
investigating agency did not find any material against the concerned accused
persons and therefore had filed ‘B-Summary Report’.
3/4
KSG 16-WP-993-2013.doc
5) In view of the above, the impugned Order dated 30 th January,
2013, is quashed and set aside and the ‘B-Summary Report’ filed by the State
C.I.D., Kokan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai alongwith report submitted under
Section 169 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the some of the
accused persons is accepted.
6) Writ Petition as well as Criminal Revision Application is allowed
in the aforesaid terms.
7) In view of disposal of Writ Petition and Criminal Revision
Application, the Criminal Application Nos.437 of 2013 and Criminal
Application Nos.404 of 2013, do not survive and are accordingly disposed
off.
( KAMAL KHATA, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN SANJAY
SANJAY GHUGE
GHUGE Date:
2026.08.01
11:48:08
+0530
4/4
Checking your session…