SANJA Y SITARAM KHEMKA versus STTE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 942 · Decided: 05-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SANJA Y SIT ARAM KHEMKA 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
MAY 5, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Petition involving disputed 
questions of fact-Prayer for grant of various reliefs-Judicial Review--
C Exercise of-Held: Such matter cannot he dealt with by High Court-Writ 
Petition not the remedy-Petitioner is required to pursue specific remedies 
provided in law-Thus, order of High Court not granting any relief is correct 
and interference by this Court not warranted-Also in view of the conduct of 
the party, not entitled to any relief in equitr-Article 13 6. 
D 
Petitioner claiming to be a manufacturer of jewellery alleged that 
the respondent no. 3 and 4 entered into a criminal conspiracy against him 
as he had exposed their illegal acts and corrupt practices in the media. 
False cases were registered against the petitioner and also his photographs 
were published in media with a story that he was hard core criminal. 
Petitioner filed writ petition praying for various reliefs. High Court 
E dismissed the same since for each of the prayers the petitioner had effective 
remedy in appropriate courts. Hence, the present special leave petition. 
F 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court 
HELD: High Court rightly held that the writ petition involved 
disputed questions of fact. Such matter cannot be dealt with by High Court 
in exercise of its power of judicial review. Petitioner has several causes of 
action wherefor he is required to pursue specific remedies provided 
therefor in law. A Writ Petition for grant of the said reliefs was not the 
remedy. Having regard to the allegations and counter allegations made 
G by the parties that several facts with regard to involvement of the 
petitioner in connection with several offences came to light and also the 
disputed questions of fact, the High Court or this Court cannot go into 
the merit of the matter; evidently no relief can be granted to the petitioner 
at this stage. Therefore, the impugned judgment of High Court does not 
H 
942 
,.. 
SANJAY SITARAM KHEMKA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
943 
contain any factual or legal error warranting interference by this Court A 
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Further, 
in view of the conduct of the petitioner in not pointing out the fact that 
he had filed writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, he is not 
entitled to any equitable relief in the petition for special leave. 
(945-F-H; 946-A-CJ B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4131 
·~ 
of 2005. 
.. 
... 
From the Judgmennt and final Order dated 15.6.05 of the Bombay 
High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2005. 
Petitioner-In-Person. 
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, K.V. Mohan R.K. Chaudhary, Saide Jakaria 
and S. Rajappa for Respondent. 
The Judgmennt of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
S.B. SINHA, J. The Petitioner herein is a businessman. He had been 
carrying on business in the name and style of "JEWELS-9". His business 
premises is situate at 504-D, Crystal Plaza, New Link Road, Andheri West, 
Mumbai-400 053. He claims himself to be a manufacturer of jewellery. He 
claims himself to be an office bearer of the "Jewellers Association of Greater E 
Andheri". The contention of the petitioner was that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 
viz., M.A.K. Sheikh and Avinash Dharamadhikari herein had entered into a 
criminal conspiracy against him as he had exposed their illegal acts and 
corrupt practices in the media on behalf of the "JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION 
OF GREATER ANDHERI" in furtherance whereof they registered five false F 
cases against him during the period 25.9.2003 to 16.10.2003. During the 
purported investigation of the said cases, the photographs of the petitioner 
were allegedly published in the media with a news story that he was a hard-
core criminal. Details of the publications in various newspapers are contained 
in sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) of the Special Leave Petition. The said articles G 
were said to have been published in different newspapers owned/published 
by respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, I 0 and 11. 
../ 
It is his contention that several articles published in different newspapers 
were false and baseless, the details whereof have been stated in paragraphs 
9, I 0 and 11 of the Special Leave Petition. 
H 
944 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Legal notices were served for registrati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.