The High Court allowed this criminal writ petition. The single judge had purportedly allowed re-investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. claiming the law did not permit re-investigation and the order was passed to cloak civil proceedings or ensure humiliation.
The order of re-investigation by the learned Judge is set aside.
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 2629.12.sxw
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2629 OF 2012
Mr. Dilip Gopinath Kharkar.
... Petitioner.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
... Respondents.
Mr. V.C. Gupte for the Petitioner. Ms. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. Mr. Devang R. Sanghavi for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.
DATED : 26th NOVEMBER 2012.
P.C. :-
Heard extensively.
2
WP 2629.12.sxw
daughter of Tanushree with Abhishek is not in controversy. Status of the parties to be highly placed in the society is also not in controversy.
3
WP 2629.12.sxw
(K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Judge correctly allowed an application for re-investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. in the given facts.
Whether the order of re-investigation required interference by the High Court.
Whether the prosecution was initiated to give cloak to civil proceedings or ensure humiliation of parties.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilip Kharkar
State of Maharashtra
Anjala
Abhishek Dilip Kharkar
Smt. Kirti Kharkar
Smt. Pooja Tambvekar
K.U. Chandiwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
