The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected a writ petition seeking a direction to compound an offence. The Court found that the petitioner refused to disclose the contents of the original complaint, rendering the relief ungraspable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 139 OF 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of :
of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders : Court’s or Judge’s orders
and Registrar’s orders. :
Mr. K.R. Tiwari for the petitioner.
Mr. S.R. Shinde, A.P.P. for the
respondents.
CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR &
P.V. KAKADE, JJ.
DATED: 9TH MARCH, 2005
P.C.:
1. Inspite of repeated query with the
learned advocate for the petitioner, he
is reluctant to inform the Court as to
what was the complaint originally filed
by the petitioner. In the absence of
the contents of complaint being
disclosed, the question of allowing the
petition for direction for compounding
the offence does not arise at all. The
petition, therefore, is rejected.
(R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.)
( P.V. Kakade, J. )
Petitioner
State
R.M.S. Khandeparkar
P.V. Kakade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court