Dismissed

Mohd Shahid Arshad S/O Abdul Hafeez v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Home Ministry Department Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC1 Aug 2012WP/317/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner was complainant in a criminal case where 'A' Summary proceedings were pending. The Court declined to interfere and permitted withdrawal with liberty to file afresh after proceedings conclude.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh seeking transfer of investigation after 'A' Summary proceedings conclude.

Mohd Shahid Arshad S/O Abdul Hafeez Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.317 OF 2012.

¶5

Mohd.Shahid Arshad Abdul Hafeez

¶6

..vs..

¶7

The State of Mah. through its Secretary, Home Deptt.Mantralaya, Mumbai and anr.

¶8

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶10

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶11

Mr.Sudhir Malode, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Sonare, APP for respondent nos.1 to 4.

¶12

C ORAM: P.V.HARDAS AND

¶13

M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : 1st AUGUST, 2012.

¶14

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor states, on instructions, that initially ‘A’ Summary has been submitted before the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.10, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate and the police were directed to conduct a fresh investigation. After investigation, ‘A’ Summary was again submitted on 9th of September, 2011. It further appears that the present petitioner, who is the complainant in the said crime, has already submitted his reply challenging the ‘A’ summary. During the pendency of the proceedings of the ‘A’ summary, it further appears that the learned Magistrate had passed an order dated 13th of March, 2012 directing the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and submit the report expeditiously.

¶15

Since the proceedings of ‘A’ Summary are still pending, we are not inclined to interfere in the present petition.

¶16

Mr.Sudhir Malode, learned counsel for the petitioner, states on instructions that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty of filing petition afresh seeking transfer of the investigation after proceedings of ‘A’ Summary are concluded.

¶17

Accordingly, we dismiss this petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for with no order as to cost.

¶18

JUDGE JUDGE.

¶19

chute

Mohd Shahid Arshad S/O Abdul Hafeez v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Home Ministry Department Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Shahid Arshad S/O Abdul Hafeez v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Home Ministry Department Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

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

Smt Suman Madhukar Parlewar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Commissioner of Police Nagpur and Others

Manoj Baburao Gedam, C/4870 Vs the Divisional Commissioner Nagpur Division Nagpur and Another

Sanjay S/O Vasantrao Saosakde Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Shegaon Distt Chandrapur

Abdul Wahid Shaikh S/O Abdul Karim Vs State of Maharashtra through the Superintendent of Police Nagpur District Nagpur and Others

Rewislala Sojilal Chavhan, C/7568 Vs the Commissioner of Police Nagpur and Others

A Jabbar a Sattar Shaikh Vs Dig Prisons (East) Nagpur and Another