Partly allowed

Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Kamaloddin v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2016APPLN/2150/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the criminal application seeking quashment of an FIR as premature since the applicant was not an accused. The court vacated interim relief in two other applications due to non-appearance of applicants and listed them for a future date.

What did the court decide?

One application rejected as premature; interim relief in two other applications vacated; remaining applications listed for October 18, 2016.

Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Kamaloddin Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2150 OF 2016 (Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Kamaloddin Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another)

¶3

AND

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2085 OF 2016
(Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Kamaloddin Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and another)

¶5

AND

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6915 OF 2015

¶7

(Shaikh Sirajoddin Shaikh Kamaloddin and others Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and another)

¶8

None for the applicants in all the applications
Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
Mr. Deelip Patil-Bankar, Advocate for respondent No. 2
in Cri. Application No. 2150/2016

¶9

Mr. A.D. Kasliwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in
Cri. Application No. 2085/2016

¶10

CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 14th September, 2016

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

When the application (Cri. Application No.

¶14

2150/2016) is called out for hearing, none appeared for

¶15

the applicant. Respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit-

¶16

in-reply. It is stated in paragraph No. 3 of the reply

¶17

that in Crime No. 98/2016, which is sought to be quashed

¶18

by this application, the present applicant is not added

¶19

as an accused at present. In that view of the matter,

¶20

2 criapln2150-2016+

¶21

there is no reason for the applicant to file this

¶22

application. In the circumstances, this application
stands rejected being premature.

¶23

2.As regards other two applications (Cri.

¶24

Application No. 2085/2016 and 6915/2016), none appeared
for the applicants when these matters are called out.
The interim relief granted in these applications stands
vacated. Since the order granting interim relief in

¶25

these two applications is vacated, there is no

¶26

impediment to proceed with the further investigation for
filing the chargesheet.

¶27

3.List the applications (Cri. Application No.

¶28

2085/2016 and 6915/2016) on 18th October, 2016.

¶29

npj/criapln2150-2016+

Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Kamaloddin v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Kamaloddin v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Rajabhau S/O Dagadu Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharshtra and Other

Vijaysing S/O Nathesing Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Shaikh Raju S/O. Shaikh Mehboob and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Mah Thr. Ahmedpur P.S. Vs Gopal Sidram Mekle and Anr.

Shailabai W/O. Gulab Wankhede Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anand S/O Kashiram Sapkale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others