- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sanjay Sitaram Khemka v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, a businessman operating under the name “JEWELS-9” at Andheri West, Mumbai, alleged that Respondents 3 and 4 (M.A.K. Sheikh and Avinash Dharamadhikari) conspired against him after he exposed their purported illegal activities through the “Jewellers Association of Greater Andheri.” Between 25-09-2003 and 16-10-2003, five criminal cases were registered against him, and newspapers owned by Respondents 6–11 published photographs portraying him as a “hard-core criminal.”
The petitioner served legal notices seeking registration of FIRs against Respondents 3 and 4 and petitioned various constitutional and statutory authorities, including the President of India and the National Human Rights Commission. A criminal writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court (W.P. No. 2611 of 2004) was dismissed for default on 27-01-2005. After blaming his advocate for that dismissal, the petitioner filed another writ petition in the High Court, which a Division Bench dismissed on the ground that alternative efficacious remedies were available for each grievance.
He had also filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2006 in the Supreme Court under Article 32, which was dismissed on 20-02-2006. Undeterred, the petitioner sought special leave under Article 136 to challenge the Bombay High Court’s refusal to entertain his subsequent writ petition, leading to the present proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Article 136 of the Constitution when his grievances involve disputed questions of fact and alternative statutory remedies exist.
- Whether the Bombay High Court erred in dismissing the petitioner’s writ petition that sought omnibus reliefs—including investigation, compensation, and defamation redress—through its jurisdiction under Article 226.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The criminal cases registered between September and October 2003 were fabricated as part of a conspiracy by Respondents 3 and 4.
- Newspaper reports labelling him a “hard-core criminal” were false, baseless, and defamatory.
- State authorities failed to act on his numerous representations, justifying judicial intervention, an enquiry by the CBI, and compensation.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The State of Maharashtra, through a counter-affidavit by an Inspector of Police, asserted that investigations revealed the petitioner’s controversial past and involvement in duping businessmen, advertisers, and others.
- A major newspaper group stated that its publications relied solely on official police statements, negating any malice or illegality in reporting.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had already pursued similar relief in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2006 under Article 32, which had been dismissed. The petitioner failed to disclose that earlier dismissal when seeking notice in the present matter.
Agreeing with the Bombay High Court, the Court emphasized:
- Claims of conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and defamation raise disputed questions of fact unsuitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction.
- Specific statutory and civil remedies—such as filing criminal complaints, defamation suits, or claims for damages—are available and more appropriate.
Because the High Court cannot conduct a factual trial within Article 226 review, and given the petitioner’s prior unsuccessful Article 32 petition, the Court found no factual or legal error warranting interference under Article 136. It further held that the petitioner’s nondisclosure of earlier proceedings and overall conduct disentitled him to equitable relief.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED.
The special leave petition was dismissed. The immediate consequence is that the petitioner receives no relief from the Supreme Court and must pursue ordinary criminal or civil proceedings if he wishes to press his grievances. The judgment reiterates the principle that writ jurisdiction is not an avenue for resolving heavily fact-dependent disputes when adequate alternative remedies exist; it sets no new precedent beyond applying that settled doctrine.
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 are 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 Andheri”. The contention of the petitioner was that Respondents 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 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 hardcore criminal. Details of the publications in various newspapers are contained in sub-paras (a) to (g) of the special leave petition. The said articles were said to have been published in different newspapers owned/published by Respondents 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
2. It is his contention that several articles published in different newspapers were false and baseless, the details whereof have been stated in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the special leave petition.
3. Legal notices were served for registration of first information reports by the petitioner against Respondents 3 and 4. He had also addressed several letters to high dignitaries including the President of India, the Prime Minister of India, the Chief Justice of India, the Home Minister of India, the Chairman, NHRC and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. He is also said to have sent a fax to the Governor of Maharashtra. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the purported representations made by the petitioner to the Governor of the State of Maharashtra, he was called to the Raj Bhawan and was given a hearing by the ADC of the Governor. However, allegedly, no further action was taken by the said authority. He filed a criminal writ petition questioning the alleged highhanded activities of D.N Nagar police and made a request for enquiry into the whole episode by the Central Bureau of Investigation. He filed a transfer petition before this Court for transfer of the said writ petition. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. The criminal writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 2611 of 2004 was dismissed for default on 27-1-2005. The petitioner made his Advocate Mr Akhilesh Singh responsible for dismissal of the said writ petition, for which he is said to have filed a complaint against him under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. However, on the premise that no action had been taken by the authorities concerned, he again filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court praying for various reliefs which had been referred to in detail in the impugned judgment. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dismissed the said writ petition stating:
“The petitioner appears in person and submits that action against the respondents is liable to be taken and the abovequoted prayers are liable to be granted. For each of the prayers mentioned above, the petitioner has effective remedy in appropriate courts. If he has grievance of he being maliciously treated the remedy for him to file a complaint is open. If he is harassed by the police officials, criminal complaint against such police officials can be lodged in an appropriate criminal court. If he has been defamed, action for defamation can be taken in an appropriate court. If he wants damages for loss of prestige he has adequate remedy to claim such damages by way of a suit. Thus, for each prayer an independent efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. Instead, the petitioner has chosen to come under Article 226 with these omnibus prayers that there be investigation into the conduct of the police department and appropriate action including award of compensation be given to the petitioner….”
The petitioner is, thus, before us.
5. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner who appeared in person, we may notice a disturbing fact. The petitioner had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2006 on the selfsame grounds before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which was, however, dismissed on 20-2-2006. In this case, a detailed counter-affidavit had been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra affirmed by one Mr Pradeep, Inspector of Police, attached to D.N Nagar police station. The said deponent has affirmed that various complaint petitions came to be filed against the petitioner. It is stated that during investigation of the said cases several facts in regard to involvement of the petitioner in connection with several offences came to light. He has stated:
“The past of the petitioner is quite controversial; he was involved in different business and duped many businessmen, even advertising agencies, newspaper publishers and hotel industries. He poses himself as a jeweller, diamond merchant but he has no knowledge of the said business and under the pretext of diamond merchant and jeweller he duped the shop-owners.”
6. One leading publishing house of a newspaper also filed a counter-affidavit stating that all the publications made in the newspaper were on the basis of official statements made by police officials and as such no motive can be attributed to it.
7. The petitioner has filed rejoinders to the said counter-affidavits.
8. Having regard to the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties before us, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition. The writ petition has rightly been held by the High Court to be involving disputed questions of fact. The petitioner has several causes of action wherefor he is required to pursue specific remedies provided therefor in law.
9. A writ petition, as has rightly been pointed out by the High Court, for grant of the said reliefs, was not the remedy. A matter involving a great deal of disputed questions of fact cannot be dealt with by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. As the High Court or this Court cannot, in view of the nature of the controversy as also the disputed questions of fact, go into the merit of the matter; evidently no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not contain any factual or legal error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
10. Furthermore, the petitioner had also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner at the time of issuance of notice in this matter did not point out the said fact.
11. In view of the conduct of the petitioner also, he is not entitled to any equitable relief in the petition for special leave.
12. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed accordingly.
Alert