Partly allowed

Nitin Hargovind Vishngara and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2013WP/1102/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal of a criminal writ petition challenging initiated proceedings that were subsequently dropped. The court discarded a subsidiary grievance regarding non-action on complaints but directed the Commissioner of Police to investigate those complaints separately.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the petition, standing dismissed; Commissioner of Police directed to investigate complaints of inaction.

Nitin Hargovind Vishngara and Anr. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

23-WP-1102-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1102 OF 2012

¶5

NITIN HARGOVIND VISHNGARA & ANR. )...PETITIONERS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS

¶6

Mr.A.A.Siddique i/b. M/s.A.A.Siddique & Associates Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mrs.S.V.Sonawane APP for the State.

¶8

Investigating Officer – Mr.Pandurang K. Bhosale, A.P.I., Samata Nagar Police Station, present in the court.

¶9

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 3^rd JULY, 2013.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 Heard Mr.A.A.Siddique, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, the learned APP for the State.

¶12

2 The learned counsel submits that the petitioners had challenged the initiation of chapter case against them, but the said chapter proceedings had since been dropped. As such, the main grievance of the petitioners is satisfied.

¶13

avk 1/2

¶14

23-WP-1102-2012

¶15

3 The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that his further grievance, namely, no action is being taken on the complaints dated 5.11.2008 and 29.11.2008, made by the petitioner no.1 to the respondent no.2, i.e. Senior Inspector of Police, Samata Nagar Police Station, Kandivali (West), has not been redressed. In this context, the learned APP, on oral instructions from the Investigating Officer – Mr.Pandurang K. Bhosale, A.P.I., Samata Nagar Police Station, who is present in the court, submits that a case has been registered against the developer based on the complaints made by the petitioner no.1.

¶16

4 The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes this, but in view of the fact that their principal grievance which led to the filing of the petition does not survive now, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the present petition.

¶17

5 The petition is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as such.

¶18

6 A copy of this order and the petition be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police for Brihan Mumbai, who may look into the grievance of the petitioners that no action on the complaints dated 5.11.2008 and 29.11.2008 made by the petitioner no.1 is being taken, and take such action as he thinks fit in the matter.

¶19

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶20

avk 2/2

Nitin Hargovind Vishngara and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Hargovind Vishngara and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shridhar L. Unde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishal @ Sonu Rajendar Shrivastav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Balasaheb Khengre Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Jyoti Pharmachem Vs M/S. Kanchan Rasayan and Anr.

Nivrutti Yashwant Sakate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Siddharth v. Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.