The High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of Criminal Application No.95 of 2010. The Court ruled that the applicant could not press this application as a contempt petition had already been filed and dismissed, rendering the current prayers inoperative.
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.
T
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2010 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2225 OF 2007
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders
Mr D.S.Doctor-applicant in-person present.
Mr S.K.Shinde with A.S.Gadkari for respondent no.4 (CBI). Mr D.D.Tiwari, for respondent no.5. Ms Shradha Chavan i/b Suresh Kumar for respondent nos 2 and 3. Ms S.D.Shinde, APP, for the State.
CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE AND A.R.JOSH, JJ. DATE : 26/04/2010
PC:
Heard the applicant in person and learned counsel for the respondents.
In this application, the applicant has prayed for the reliefs as prayed in Criminal Writ Petition No.2225 of 2007. He also seeks direction to comply with the order of this court dated 6.2.2009. It appears that similar prayers were made by the applicant in Criminal Application
2
No.s479 of 2009 and 370 of 2009 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2225 of 2007. This Court, by order dated 27.1.2010, disposed of the application No.479 of 2009. The order dated 27.1.2010 reads thus;
“1. The Division Bench of this Court has already disposed of Criminal Writ Petition No.2225 of 2007 by its order dated 6.2.2009. The applicant party-in-person submitted that the observations made in paras 3 and 4 of the said order have not been complied with by the Department, as the averments have not been taken into account by the Department as well as Union of India. It is required to be noted that if the Department has committed any contempt of court by violating the directions of the Court, the appropriate remedy would be to file substantive petition and the applicant cannot agitate his grievance by preferring this criminal application in a writ petition which was already disposed of.
The applicant submits that in view of the
3
order dated 27.1.2010 he had filed a contempt petition, bearing Contempt Petition No.111 of 2010, in this court and the same has been dismissed. Keeping that in view and considering the order dated 27.1.10 passed in Criminal Application No.479 of 2009, in our opinion, the prayers made in this application cannot be entertained and disposed of as such.
(A.R.JOSHI , J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)
4
D.S.Doctor
Union of India
Department
CBI
State
D.B.Bhosale
A.R.Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
