Petitioner under Article 226 conceded that writ was not the proper remedy. Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to file an application exclusively under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.90 of 2012.
Subroto Chatopadhya and another.
...Versus...
The State of Mah. through Police Inspector, P.S.Panchpaoli, Nagpur and anr.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
[Mr.P.M.Kalar, Adv. for the petitioner]
[Mrs.T.D.Khade, APP for respondent no.1]
[Mr.P.N.Mohta, Adv. for respondent no.2)
CORAM: A.H. JOSHI AND
SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,JJ.
DATE : 20.04.2012.
This is a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
During the course of hearing the learned Advocate
for the petitioners states that he is satisfied that
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is not a proper remedy. He would study and file
appropriate application exclusively under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. with liberty to avail the remedies as
available in law.
The petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with
liberty to file application exclusively under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
JudgeJudge
Ch.
Subroto Chatopadhya and another.
The State of Mh. through Police Inspector, P.S.Panchpaoli, Nagpur and anr.
A.H. Joshi
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court