The petition filed under Article 226 was disposed of as the affidavit filed by the respondent State stated that the chargesheet had been filed, rendering the petition moot.
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. 2238 OF 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of :
of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders : Court’s or Judge’s orders
and Registrar’s orders. :
Petitioner is present in person.
Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for the
respondent State.
CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR &
P.V. KAKADE, JJ.
DATED: 22ND FEBRUARY, 2005
P.C.:
1. Perused the affidavit filed by the
respondent wherein it has been clearly
stated that the chargesheet has been
filed in the Court of Magistrate, 28th
Court at Borivali on 18.2.2005. The
learned A.P.P. has also made available
copy of the chargesheet filed in the
said Court for our perusal which
apparently discloses that the
chargesheets have been filed on the
ground of commission of offence
punishable under Sections 408, 409,
465, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of
I.P.C. against 11 accused, while
showing four others as absconding. The
petitioner herein is also shown as a
witness in the said case in the said
chargesheet. In view of the fact that
the chargesheet is filed, nothing
survives in the petition. Petition is
accordingly disposed of.
(R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.)
( P.V. Kakade, J. )
Anomymous Petitioner
State of Maharashtra
R.M.S. Khandeparkar
P.V. Kakade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court