The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction as the dispute was a personal matter between private parties. The court held the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy via a private complaint.
Petition disposed of with liberty to file a private complaint.
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.
wp-306-11
1
Ladda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 306 OF 2011
Ibrahim Gulamnabi Shaikh
...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors ...Respondents
Mr A.R. Prajapati, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P.for the State.
Mr Vinod wadhwa, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7.
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- 10th February, 2011.
P.C.
to the petitioner to pursue other remedy by way of private complaint, if
so advised. We are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction in the fact situation of the present case, having noticed that the dispute is essentially a personal matter between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 7.
Needless to observe that criminal complaint to be filed by the petitioner
Ladda 2 wp-306-11
would proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by disposal of this writ petition.
(A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)
Ibrahim Gulamnabi Shaikh
The State of Maharashtra
A.M. Khanwilkar
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
