The Bombay High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by Sudhindra Sharma under Article 226, holding that the prayed reliefs of staying vigilance proceedings and quashing the case could not be granted at that stage.
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.
(WP 4239 of 2014)
vat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 4239 OF 2014
Sudhindra Sharma ...Petitioner
Vs. A.K. Maitra Advisor and Ors ...Respondents
Mr. Amar Nagi for Petitioner Mr. K.V. Saste-APP for the State
CORAM : V. M. KANADE M.S. SONAK, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 5, 2014
P.C. :
(b) The Hon'ble Court call for all records from the Vigilance department including the Audio CD which appears to be doctored on the basis of which this entire case is based and set it to forensic Laboratory for its authenticity.
(c) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to Quash the proceedings pending with the Vigilance Department Western
1/2
(WP 4239 of 2014)
Railway Authorities.
(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition the further proceedings in the above matter be stayed.
(e) For interim and ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (a & d) above;
(f) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature of the case.”
[M.S. SONAK, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vaishali Tikam
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can grant interim stay and quash vigilance proceedings on prima facie allegation of audio doctery under Article 226.
Sudhindra Sharma
A.K. Maitra
V. M. Kanade
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
