Dismissed

Dr. Nainesh Prabhakar Dahale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Aug 2015WP/493/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a joint plot owner, filed a criminal writ petition alleging false case and demanding quashing of proceedings. Bench declined to enter disputed facts as material was sufficient for trial, rejecting the petition sans merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected sans merits; liberty reserved to move the trial court for expeditious hearing of the application for further investigation.

Dr. Nainesh Prabhakar Dahale Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Criminal W.P. No.493/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.493 OF 2015.

¶5

Dr. Nainesh Prabhakar Dahale ... PETITIONER VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶7

... RESPONDENTS

¶8

Shri M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 Shri A.M. Karad, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶9

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATED: 7th August, 2015.

¶10

ORAL ORDER :

¶11

Heard. The counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the various documents and submits that, the petitioner is joint owner of the plot. He further submits that, the concerned officers to whom complaint is filed by the petitioner, has not properly caused the investigation. It is submitted that, so as to deprive the petitioner from enjoying the said property, false case is filed against the petitioner. In fact,

¶12

Criminal W.P. No.493/2015

¶13

¶14

when the petitioner himself claims joint ownership, there was no question of removing the file from the office of the CIDCO. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the pending proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class deserves to be quashed.

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3 and learned A.P.P. jointly submit that it is only upon appreciation of the material collected by the prosecution the concerned Court can reach to the definite conclusion. It is further submitted that, while exercising writ jurisdiction by this Court, it is not desirable to enter into the disputed questions of facts. Therefore, the petition may be rejected.

¶16

We have given careful consideration to the rival contentions. With the able assistance of the counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the allegations in the F.I.R., charge sheet and accompaniments to the charge sheet. Looking to the evidence available and material collected by the investigating agency, prima facie, it appears that the allegations need to be tested in the light of evidence collected by the prosecution agency before the trial Court during trial. It is not

¶17

Criminal W.P. No.493/2015

¶18

¶19

desirable for this Court to enter into the disputed questions of facts and appreciation of the evidence collected by the prosecution agency and then reach to a particular conclusion. Since the charge sheet is filed and the prosecution agency has collected enough material for trial, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. hence, the petition sans merits, stands rejected.

¶20

At this stage, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the application of the petitioner for further investigation is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. We do not wish to give any specific directions. However, petitioner would be at liberty to move before the same Court for expeditious hearing of the said application.

¶21

fmp/cwp493.15

Dr. Nainesh Prabhakar Dahale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Nainesh Prabhakar Dahale 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Sikandar Mohd. Maulans Vs Shri Abdul Habib Abdul Rahim Bagwar and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra. Vs Shaikh Ameer Shaikh Abdulla.

Sudhakar Yashvantrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rohit Bajarang Gupta and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Azher Khan S/O Pasha Khan Vs the Police Inspector Jinsi P.S.Aurangabad and Anr.

Angad Vishwanath Mammale Vs the State of Maharashtra