Partly allowed

Munaf K. Vadgama and Anr. v. Dinesh N. Kotecha and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2006WP/174/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner sought to quash a complaint case after process was issued by the Magistrate. The court held that a revision application in the Sessions Court remained an efficacious remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. Ad-interim relief granted to enable petitioners to approach the Sessions Court for a period of 6 weeks.

Munaf K. Vadgama and Anr. Vs Dinesh N. Kotecha and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.174 OF 2006

¶3

.......................................................... Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶4

Court’s or Judge’s orders

¶5

Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Sr.Advocate with Ms. E.A. Gonsalves, for the Petitioners. Mr. U.V. Nikam, A.P.P. and Mr. Virendra Lohashia, for R.No.2

¶6

CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 16TH AUGUST 2006.

¶7

P.C. : 1. Heard	learned Senior Counsel
Shri Mundargi,	appearing for the
Petitioners.	In this Petition
filed under	Article 227 of the
Constitution	of India r/w.Section
482 of the	Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973,	the prayer is for
quashing comp	laint case filed by
the 1st Respo	ndent. It is not in
dispute that	on the private
complaint filed	by the 1st
Respondent, the	learned Magistrate
has issued	process. In view of
this position,	in the light of
decision of	learned Single Judge
of this Court	in the case of V.K.
Jain and Ors.	V/s. Pratap Padole
and Anr. (	2005(3) Mh.L.J. Page

¶8

:2:

¶9

778),	the	efficacious remed	y of
filing	a	Revision	Application
before	the	Sessions Co	urt for
challenging		the order	issuing
process is	available to	the
Petitioners.
2.	The	learned Counsel	appearing
for t	he Pe	titioners in vi	ew of
this	position	seeks permi	ssion to
withdraw	this	petition	with
liberty	to	file a	Revision
Application Court.	before the	Sessions

¶10

3.	T	he	Wri	t Petitio	n is	allowed
to	be		withd	rawn w	ith liberty	as
prayed.			Ad-	interim	relief	granted
in	favou	r	of	the	Petitioner	to
continue		for	a	period	of 6	weeks
from	to	day		to	enable	the
Petitioner	s to	appr	oach	the
Sessions	Court.

¶11

4.	It	is		obvious	th	at	the
Sessions		Cou	rt	while		consi	dering
the	prayer		for	con	donati	ion	of
delay	will	take	a	note	of	the	fact

¶12

:3:

¶13

that		Writ		Petiti	on was	filed	in
this		Court		on	23rd Jan	uary	2006
and		an a	d-int	erim	order	was	passed
by	this	Court in	this	Writ
Peti	tion.

¶14

JUDGE

Munaf K. Vadgama and Anr. v. Dinesh N. Kotecha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munaf K. Vadgama and Anr. v. Dinesh N. Kotecha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganpat Ramchandra Choudhari (Decd) by Lrs Nivrutti Ganpat Choudhari and Ors. Vs Raju Shivram Jundre and Ors.

Kokan Railway Forp Limited Vs Bhiku Tukaram Bharati and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra . Vs Kashiram Dehu Kadam .

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mustaq Ismail Memon and 4 Ors.

Bhanumati Shyamnarain Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Cutchi Lohana Nivas Griha Trust and Ors. Vs Dinesh N. Kotecha and Anr.