The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Prashant Kishor Mehta challenging the discharge of his brother in a CBI bank fraud case, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was neither a complainant, a victim nor an aggrieved person. The Court also held that the challenge, filed nearly eight years after the discharge order, suffered from inordinate delay and laches.
Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe observed that the petitioner had described himself as a ‘whistle-blower’ and claimed he wanted to remove the stigma attached to his deceased father, who was also an accused in the case. However, the Court held that these circumstances did not confer any legal right to challenge the discharge order. It noted that the petitioner had not suffered any legal injury and was not connected with the criminal proceedings in any recognised legal capacity.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Harsh Mandar v. Amit Anilchandra Shah, (2017) 13 SCC 420, the Court reiterated that a third party who is neither a victim nor an aggrieved person cannot ordinarily invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction to challenge an accused’s discharge in criminal proceedings.
The Court further rejected the petitioner’s explanation for approaching the Court after 7 years and 10 months, observing that although no statutory limitation is prescribed for invoking writ jurisdiction, such petitions must still be filed within a reasonable time. The Bench found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, particularly when the CBI itself had not challenged the discharge order.
Holding that the petition was not maintainable both on the ground of lack of locus standi and inordinate delay, the High Court dismissed the writ petition without imposing costs.
