Dismissed

Shailesh J. Dawda and Anr. v. Vijaya Panicker and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Oct 2008WP/1788/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application for quashing of an FIR pending before a Magistrate. The Bench held that since the police had filed a report under Section 156(3) CrPC, the petition would not be entertained as objections could be raised before the Magistrate during the C-Summary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of without entertaining the plea for quashing of the FIR.

Shailesh J. Dawda and Anr. Vs Vijaya Panicker and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 ..(1)..

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1788 OF 2008

¶4

 Shailesh J. Dawda
 and Anr. ..Petitioners.

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 Smt.Vijaya Panicker,
 and Anr. ..Respondents.

¶7

 ....
 Mr.Sachin B. Thorat, Adv. for the petitioner.
 Mr.S.S.Kulkarni, Adv. for orig.complainant.
 Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for the State.

¶8

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.

¶9

DATED : 20th October, 2008.

¶10

 P.C.:

¶11

 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the

¶12

 petitioner-orig.accused, the learned Advocate for
 respondent No.1-orig.complainant and the learned APP
 for the State.

¶13

 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of R.C.C.
 No.45 of 2008 which is in respect of complaint filed
 by respondent No.1 which is pending before the

¶14

 learned J.M.F.C. at Vashi. The said case is
 interalia under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of
 Indian Penal Code.

¶15

 ..(2)..

¶16

 3. It is an admitted fact that the said case has

¶17

 been referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. The
 learned APP, on instructions, states that the police
 have filed report and they have prayed for C-Summary.

¶18

 4. In view of the above, I do not find it
 necessary to entertain the present petition. It

¶19

 would be open to the complainant to advance her
 submissions before the learned Magistrate when the
 application for C-summary is being decided by the
 learned Magistrate.

¶20

 5. With the above observations, Writ Petition is
 disposed of.

¶21

(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

Shailesh J. Dawda and Anr. v. Vijaya Panicker and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh J. Dawda and Anr. v. Vijaya Panicker and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guru Swarup Srivastava Vs S.S. Giri and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Babugauda Balasaheb Patil and Ors.

Rameshchandra Parakh and Ors. Vs Dilip Singh Barla and Anr.

Dilip Mavinakurve Vs Hundalani Finance and Leasing Company Ltd.

Deepika Pravin Dond Vs Pravin S. Dond and Anr.

Shailesh J. Dawda Vs Leelamma Pappachen and Anr.