The court noted that the original complainant remained impleaded in the corresponding writ petition. It ordered the proponent to amend the application to implead the complainant as Respondent No. 6 within one week.
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.
1appw- 23-11 in wp-3706-10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Application No. 23 of 2011.
In
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3706 of 2010
Shri Ajeet Shankarlal Bhatia .. Applicant.
Original Complainant.
V/s
Mr Dilip Mohandas Ramrakhyani & Ors .. Respondents.
Mr Prakash Naik, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr Jayant Bardeskar i/by Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate for the Respondents.
Mr D.P. Adsule, A.P.P.for the State.
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR &
A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 12TH JANUARY,2011.
P.C.:-
2appw- 23-11 in wp-3706-10
claimed in the writ petition is for quashing of the complaint, the complainant would be a appropriate party to the writ petition. Hence, this application is allowed. The Petitioner shall carry out the amendment to implead the complainant as Respondent No.6 in the writ petition. That be done within one week from today failing which petition shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution, without further
reference to the Court.
(A.R. JOSHI, J) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J)
Shri Ajeet Shankarlal Bhatia
Mr Dilip Mohandas Ramrakhyani & Ors
A.M. Khanwilkar
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court