The court dismissed a criminal writ petition where the petitioner was absent. The judge found the petition lacked merit following the dismissal of revision by the lower court and found no illegality in dismissing the request for investigation under Cr.P.C. section 156(3).
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.
hvn
10//wp/ No.214.11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 214 OF 2011
| Savita Kamath | ... | Petitioner | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Versus | |||
| State of Maharashtra and Anr. | ... | Respondents |
None for the petitioner.
Mr. P.M. Havnoor i/by M/s. Radhika Samant, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for State.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2011
P.C.
The counsel for the petitioner is not present when the matter is called.
The same position was on earlier date. Revision of the Petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 12.11.2010. On going through the same, I do not see any illegality therein. The matter was revolving in terms of section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. calling for investigation by the police station Vile Parle. Mumbai. Even otherwise, the petition lacks merit. Dismissed.
(K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)
1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present petition lacks merit in light of the dismissal of the revision by the Additional Sessions Judge and the absence of any illegality apparent on the record.
Whether the petition invoking the court's power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to call for police investigation merits acceptance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Savita Kamath
State of Maharashtra
K.U. Chandiwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
