The applicant challenged an order issuing process. The court held that a statutory remedy existed and permitted withdrawal, granting liberty to file a revision in the Sessions Court.
Withdrawal of application allowed with liberty to file revision in Sessions Court within one month; interim relief continued for one month.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1393 OF 2013
VITTHAL SUBHANRAO TIDKE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. S.R.Andhale h/f Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar APP for Respondent no.1 : Mr.P.N.Muley Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni advocate For R/2
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: September 03, 2013
P.C. :-
aaa/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
3. This submission is reasonable.
( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )
aaa/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a criminal application challenging an order issuing process when a statutory remedy exists.
Vitthal Subhanrao Tidke and Others
State of Maharashtra
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
