Disposed

Ladkya Radkya Kom v. Sr. Inspector of Police and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2008WP/1627/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition seeking transfer of investigation and registration of a case against a respondent officer. Concluded that main reliefs were infructuous and directed petitioner to approach the Director General of Police for remaining grievances.

What did the court decide?

Predicated on the full disposal of the main reliefs, the remaining prayer was directed to be approached via representation to the Director General of Police.

Ladkya Radkya Kom Vs Sr. Inspector of Police and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1627 OF 2007

¶5

 Ladkya Radkya Kom : Petitioner

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

 Sr.Inspector of Police,

¶8

 Thane Gramin Kasa Police Station & Ors. : Respondents

¶9

 Mr.Sameer Vaidya for the petitioner.

¶10

 Mrs.A.S.Pai, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
 Mr.R.S.Apte with Mr.R.D.Motkari for respondent no.4.

¶11

CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & S.A.BOBDE,JJ.

¶12

 DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2008.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

 1. This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed by the
 petitioner seeking to transfer the investigation in C.R.
 no.I-54 of 2007 to any other independent investigating
 agency. We are told that the investigation has already
 been completed, but charge-sheet has not yet been filed
 because of pendency of this Writ Petition.

¶15

 2. Another prayer was that a case should be registered
 against the respondent no.4. It is submitted that C.R.
 no.21 has already been registered against the respondent

¶16

 -: 2 :-

¶17

 no.4 and he is placed under suspension. However, the
 learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the
 allegations levelled against him in the charge-sheet are
 false.

¶18

 3. The third relief claimed was that the respondent nos.5
 and 6 should conduct an inquiry against the respondent
 nos.1 to 3 for dereliction of duty in investigating C.R.
 no.I-54 of 2007. Since the main reliefs claimed by the
 petitioner have already been given, the Writ Petition with
 regard to those reliefs has become infructuous. With
 respect to prayer clause (c), if the petitioner has still
 any grievance, he may approach the Director General of
 Police by way of a representation and if such a
 representation is made, the Director General shall decide

¶19

 the same within four weeks thereafter.

¶20

 4. The Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶21

 (BILAL NAZKI, J.)

¶22

 (S.A. BOBDE, J.)

Ladkya Radkya Kom v. Sr. Inspector of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ladkya Radkya Kom v. Sr. Inspector of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu Gangadhar Jagdhale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Laiq Ahmad Rafiq Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Parmeshwar Bhiwa Pol

Sanjay Dagdu Mane. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod Kumar Ram Narayan Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vijay Namdeo Jadhav and Ors.