Partly allowed

Sippy Nirmal Patawari (Intervener) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Sept 2016APPW/354/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an application seeking to implead an applicant-intervenor, a victim alleging offences under Section 498A IPC and similar, as a respondent in a main writ petition, directing impleadment within two weeks while declining to adjudicate on substantive averments at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Directing the writ petitioner to implead the applicant as respondent No.2 in the main writ petition within two weeks.

Sippy Nirmal Patawari (Intervener) Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2016)

appw354

ssp

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.354 OF 2014 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2271 OF 2014

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memorandam of Coram,
appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders
or directions and
Registrar’s orders

¶8

Ms Manjula Rao for the petitioner
Ms Poonam Utekar for the Applicant
Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM :A.S.OKA AND
 R.D.DHANUKA,JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2016

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1Heard the learned counsel for the
applicant-intervenor and the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner. Though
the applicant may not the first
informant in the FIR subject matter of
challenge in the writ petition, it can
be said that the applicant is a victim
of the alleged offence.

¶12

2Accordingly, the applicant is a
proper party to the main writ petition.
Hence, we dispose of the application by
passing the following order:

¶13

(I) We direct the writ petitioner to

¶14

2 appw354

¶15

implead the applicant as party
respondent No.2 to the main writ
petition by carrying out amendment
within a period of two weeks from the
date on which this order is uploaded;

¶16

(II) The Advocate for the applicant
takes notice of the writ petition;

¶17

(III) We clarify that we have made no
final adjudication on the correctness
of the detailed averments made in this
application;

¶18

(IV) Criminal application is disposed
of on above terms.

¶19

(R.D.DHANUKA,J)

Sippy Nirmal Patawari (Intervener) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sippy Nirmal Patawari (Intervener) v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Santosh Dhanadas Kurup Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Jagganath Bendre Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Bharat Nanjibhai Thakkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Jagdish Nandkumar Sonal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Imtiyaz Iliyaas Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gaurav Narendra Vargante and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.