Disposed

Parveen Annasaheb Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC5 Sept 2013WP/310/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the petitioner, who was charged under Section 160 IPC and implicated as a witness in a Section 325 IPC case against a respondent, was permitted to withdraw the petition to approach the JMFC instead.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw writ petition to make appropriate application before learned JMFC, Aurangabad.

Parveen Annasaheb Mohite Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.WP No.310/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.310/2013.

¶5

Parveen Annasaheb Mohite - PETITIONER

¶6

 VERSUS

¶7

The State of Mah. & Anr. - RESPONDENTS
*****

¶8

Mr.Nilesh S.Ghanekar, Advocate for Petitioner;
Mr.SG Nandedkar, APP for State.

¶9

*****

¶10

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL & A.I.S.CHEEMA,JJ.

¶11

DATE : 5th SEPTEMBER,2013.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1)Heard. The accused/petitioner had friction
with Respondent No.2 – Jaiwant Shinde, intercepted by
police and both were charged for offence punishable
under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code. It also
revealed that the petitioner suffered nasal injury,
resulting in fracture of nasal bone, giving rise to
offence under Section 325 of IPC against Respondent
No.2.

¶14

2)The misery is, the investigator filed a
composite charge-sheet against petitioner – Pravin
for offence under Section 160 of IPC and against
Respondent No.2 – Jaiwant for offence under Section
325 of IPC. It is a matter of fact that petitioner –
Pravin would be a witness for establishing offence
under Section 325 of IPC, which is slapped against
Respondent No.2 – Jaiwant. The investigator should
have given a thought on this aspect to have two
charge-sheets. This is more so, offence under Section

¶15

2 Cri.WP No.310/2013

¶16

160 of IPC is a Summary trial and the procedure
contemplated therewith has to be followed.

¶17

3)Keeping these aspects in mind, the
petitioner/accused is permitted to withdraw the writ
petition to make appropriate application before
learned JMFC, Aurangabad.

¶18

 (A.I.S.CHEEMA) (K.U.CHANDIWAL)
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

bdv/

Parveen Annasaheb Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Annasaheb Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Dagdu Ramji Shendge Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Subhash Gyandeo Dame and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Gurunath Raghoba Kathare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Gopaldas Narayandas Tapadiya and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Mohammad Khaja Mounuddin S/O Vaziruddin Vs Ahemad Mohiyuddin Alias Ahemad Hakam Vajiruddin and Another

Swapnil Gulab Tawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another