Ajay Mafatlal seeks to quash intimidation complaint | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jan 16, 2017-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Ajay Mafatlal seeks to quash intimidation complaint

mumbai Updated: Feb 09, 2010 01:04 IST
Urvi Mahajani
Urvi Mahajani
Hindustan Times
Highlight Story

Ajay Mafatlal (52), son of the late Yogindra Mafatlal of the Mafatlal Industries, on Monday approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the first information report (FIR) lodged against him for allegedly intimidating his brother Atulya and wife Sheetal.

In their application, Ajay and his cousin Shailaja Parekh alleged that they are being falsely implicated by Atulya.

The high court has reserved order on their application.

The Mafatlal siblings are lodged in a bitter property dispute since their father’s death in January 2005.

On December 26, 2007, Atulya and Sheetal had lodged a complaint with the Gamdevi police alleging that Ajay was threatening them.

The police lodged an FIR against Ajay and his cousin Shailaja Parekh (52) for allegedly intimidating Atulya and Sheetal under Sections 504 [intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace] and 506 (II) [punishment for criminal intimidation] of the Indian Penal Code.

On December 28, 2007, Ajay got anticipatory bail, but he later withdrew it, as the offence was bailable.

The police did not arrest Ajay, but filed a charge sheet on July 31, 2009, and submitted it to the Girgaum metropolitan magistrate. The magistrate took cognisance of the offence and Ajay was arrested. He got bail on the same day.

On Monday, Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari asked how did the police lodge an FIR in a non-cognisable offence.

Ajay’s counsel Sayaji Nangre argued that the charge sheet does not point out any material connecting Ajay to the alleged offence and as the offence is non-cognisable, the police could not have lodged an FIR. “Besides, the police could not even have filed the charge sheet,” argued Nangre.

Police cannot investigate into a non-cognisable offence till they seek permission from magistrate, which they did not do in this case, argued Nangre.

<