Dismissed

Hassan Mehmood Bandarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2013APPLN/2299/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant appeared absent. Counsel for the State informed the Court that the underlying prosecution remains pending before the JMFC. The High Court dismissed the criminal application and vacated interim relief, holding that the applicant must pursue remedies before the lower court where the case is pending.

What did the court decide?

Criminal application dismissed; interim relief vacated; liberty granted to pursue remedies before JMFC, Mangaon, District Raigad.

Hassan Mehmood Bandarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

vrd 1 APPLN2299/08

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2299 OF 2008

¶5

Hassan M. Bandarkar ...Applicant
v/s
State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents

¶6

None for Applicant.
Ms A.T. Javeri, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr D.M. Gupte for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶8

DATED : 3RD DECEMBER 2013.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1.Heard Mr Gupte, learned counsel for
respondent No.2. The learned counsel for applicant
repeatedly called, absent. Ms Javeri, learned APP
appears for the State. Rule was issued on 24th
April 2009. Criminal case No.52 of 2005 is pending
on the file of the JMFC, Mangaon, District Raigad

¶11

and there is another C.R. being C.R. No.149 of 2000

¶12

is registered on 20th August 2002 with Dongri
police Station, Mumbai. The prayer clause also
illustrates that the application was filed below

¶13

vrd 2 APPLN2299/08

¶14

Exh.29 or 36 in criminal case No.52 of 2005. The
learned Judge allegedly has not disposed off the

¶15

said application. If the matter is resolved
between the original complainant and the applicant
accused, the applicant has to approach the Court

¶16

concerned and inform to get appropriate orders on
Exh.29. He did not press such application and
approached this Court. It is informed by Mr Gupte

¶17

that the said prosecution is still pending. In the

¶18

situation, criminal application is dismissed. The
interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) is

¶19

vacated. The applicant is at liberty to pursue his
remedies before the JMFC, Mangaon, District Raigad.

¶20

Rule is discharged.

¶21

( K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)

Hassan Mehmood Bandarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hassan Mehmood Bandarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Anjala Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravinchandra Ratilal Shah Vs Union of India and Anr.

K.M. Shankarnarayan Shetty Vs Sadashiv B, Nigayya Shetty and Anr.

Muntajib Ahmed Qureshi Vs Geetee Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Milind Bhargav Chitale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pradip Narayan Gayayal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.