Criminal Writ Petition filed for quashing of FIR. Court declined to entertain the petition as charges were framed and case was fixed for hearing. Petition disposed of; contentions on merits kept open.
Petition disposed of; rule discharged; contentions on merits kept open.
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-165.15.odt
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.165 OF 2015
Noor Mohammed Suvarnadurgkar and Ors. … Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
Mr. Dhanesh K. Patekar i/by Mr. Raju Digamber Suryawanshi for the Petitioners. Mrs. S.V. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : 22nd AUGUST, 2016
P.C.
1 The prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is for quashing the FIR. The learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent states that during the pendency of the Petition, charge has been framed and the case has been fixed for hearing. Hence, we decline to entertain this Petition. The Petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. All contentions on merits are kept open.
1 of 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition for quashing an FIR after the framing of charges.
Whether all contentions on merits should be kept open when the petition is disposed of without adjudication.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaReferred¶9
Noor Mohammed Suvarnadurgkar and Ors.
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
A.S. Oka
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
