Dismissed

Manoj Prabhakar Lohar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Nov 2014WP/2252/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to withdraw the criminal writ petition relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Dinesh Kumar. The Court permitted withdrawal with liberty to raise all contentions before the trial court but dismissed the petition as withdrawn without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all contentions before the trial court; no cost awarded.

Manoj Prabhakar Lohar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

cri-wp-2252-12

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2252 OF 2012

¶6

Shri Manoj Prabhakar Lohar

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. S. G. Aney, Senior Counsel with Mr. Samir A. Vaidya a/w Mr. Sanjiv A. Kadam for petitioner.

¶10

Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel and Spl. P.P. with Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP a/w Mr. Ashutosh Gavnekar a/w Mr. Abhay A. Anturkar for respondent -State.

¶11

Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Nilesh Tribhuvan a/w Ms. Chaitra Pawar a/w Mr. Edith dey for respondent no.4.

¶12

Mr. R. B. Raghuvanshi for respondent no.5.

¶13

CORAM: P. V. HARDAS & G. S. KULKARNI,JJ.

¶14

NOVEMBER 26, 2014.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Yesterday when this petition was on board and was called out

¶17

for final hearing, we had heard Mr. Shrihari Aney, learned Senior Counsel,

¶18

on behalf of the petitioner at length. All the contentions raised in the

¶19

¶20

cri-wp-2252-12

¶21

petition were argued by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, we had heard Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Counsel/Special PP on behalf of State. On conclusion of the arguments of Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Counsel, this petition was directed to be listed before us today for hearing Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondent no.4 and other learned counsel representing the other respondents.

¶22

When this petition was called out for hearing, Mr. Aney, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stated before us that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition in the light of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India and Anr. [AIR 2012 SC 858] , keeping all contentions raised by the petitioner open to be raised before the trial court questioning the sufficiency of material for framing charge as well as for challenging the validity of the two sanction orders which have been issued. Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for respondent no.5 oppose the withdrawal of the petition.

¶23

¶24

cri-wp-2252-12

¶25

We, therefore, permit the petitioner to withdraw this petition with liberty, which is prayed for. Since we have not adjudicated on any of

¶26

the issues raised in this petition, all contentions are kept open. All permissible contentions would be allowed to be raised before the trial court in support of the plea of the petitioner for seeking his discharge as well as for challenging the validity of the sanction orders.

¶27

At this stage, Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for respondent no.5 have urged before us for awarding exemplary cost on the petitioner. Mr. Jethmalani has urged before us that allegations of mala fides have been recklessly made against respondent no.4 without there being any foundation in support of the same. Similarly Mr. Raghuvanshi has urged before us that the petitioner has dragged him to the court on several occasions and, therefore, he is entitled for cost.

¶28

It is true that the petitioner has made allegations of mala fides against the respondent no.4. However, since we have not adjudicated on any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, in our opinion, it would not be appropriate, at this stage, to award cost to the parties.

¶29

¶30

cri-wp-2252-12

¶31

We accordingly dismiss this petition as withdrawn with liberty

¶32

as stated above, with no order as to costs.

¶33

(G. S. KULKARNI,J.) (P. V. HARDAS,J.)

Manoj Prabhakar Lohar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Prabhakar Lohar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Pratap @ Sanjay Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Bapuso Sasane Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Jalindar Gajanan Thorat and Ors.

Abdul Rauf Hassan Khatib Vs Shakila Mohd.Shafi Khan and Ors.

Abdul Rauf Hassan Khatib Vs Shakila Mohd.Shafi Khan and Ors.

Keshav Nanaji Deore and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.