The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in a criminal writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail of the available remedy of appeal instead.
The writ petition stands disposed of; no relief was granted as the remedy of appeal was advised to the petitioner.
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.
cwp1650.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1650 OF 2016
Shaikh Razzak s/o Shaikh Anwar
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
and others.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Santosh C. Bhosale Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr.S.R. Yadav, A.P.P. for Respondents.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
P.R. BORA, JJ.
DATE : 21ST DECEMBER, 2016
ORDER :
1. Since the remedy of filing appeal is
available to the Petitioner, we decline to
exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction and grant
relief in this Petition. If the Petitioner is
advised, he can avail of the remedy of appeal
available to him.
cwp1650.16
2
2.With the above observations, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
[P.R. BORA, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
asb/DEC16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in a criminal writ petition when an ordinary appeal remedy is available to the petitioner.
Shaikh Razzak s/o Shaikh Anwar
The State of Maharashtra
S.S. SHINDE
P.R. BORA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court