Disposed

Mansingh Yadavrao Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Apr 2010WP/641/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of the criminal writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Investigating Officer within one week. If he does so, the court will satisfy itself about the main prayer regarding the registration of the offence. A direction was also issued to the Superintendent of Police, Satara, to look into a specific complaint against a respondent.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to approach the I.O. within one week; directed Superintendent of Police, Satara to look into the complaint.

Mansingh Yadavrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.641 OF 2010

¶5

Mansingh Yadavrao Pawar .. Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶6

Mr.Manoj J.Bhatt for the petitioner. Mrs.S.D.Shinde A.P.P. for the State.

¶7

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 26TH APRIL, 2010.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

Learned A.P.P. on instructions submits that they could not/did not register the offence as prayed for by the petitioner against respondent no.7 and other trustees, since the petitioner refused to sign the F.I.R. recorded by them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to approach the investigating officer and co-operate with the police for registering the offence and for investigation. His statement is accepted. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to approach the I.O. within one week from today to enable them to record and register the crime against respondent no.7 and others. We also expect some senior police officer attached to the concerned police station to monitor the investigation in this case. In view thereof the main prayer in the writ petition stands satisfied.

¶11

¶12

Insofar as prayer of the petitioner against respondent no.6 is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has already addressed the complaint/representation dated 17.2.2010 to the Superintendent of Police, Satara and supplied supporting material thereof. We expect the Superintendent of Police, Satara to look into the complaint dated 17.2.2010 (Exhibit-H to the writ petition) and if he finds any substance in the allegation made against respondent no.6 he may take appropriate action in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police with further information, if any, he has against respondent no.6 within one week from today.

¶13

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

(A.R.JOSHI,J.)

¶15

(D.B.BHOSALE,J.)

Mansingh Yadavrao Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansingh Yadavrao Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeet Krishna Shetty and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandip Pandharinath Parkhi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd. Aslam Fakir Mohomed @ Sheru Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mansingh Yadavrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Latika Subhash Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammed Hanif Abdul Rahim Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.