Dismissed

Sau Chandrakalabai W/O Sheshrao Kharat and Anr. v. the Secretary and Other

Bombay HC16 Sept 2016WP/336/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, dismissed a Criminal Writ Petition directed at Respondents 4 to 9, observing they were unnecessary parties. The court advised petitioners to file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate instead.

What did the court decide?

Direction to delete Respondents 4 to 9 from the array of Respondents; Petition dismissed.

Sau Chandrakalabai W/O Sheshrao Kharat and Anr. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

336.16WP

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

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

¶5

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 336 OF 2016

¶7

SAU CHANDRAKALABAI W/O SHESHRAO KHARAT
AND ANR
VERSUS

¶8

THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶9

...

¶10

Advocate for Petitioners: Mr.M.B. Ubale
holding for Mr. L.K. Pradhan

¶11

APP for Respondent/State:Mr.D.R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent nos. 4 to 9:
Mr.S.J.Salunke

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Dated: September 16, 2016

¶14

It appears from the pleadings and the
prayers in the Petition that Respondent
Nos. 4 to 9 are not necessary parties to
the Petition.

¶15

2.In the circumstances, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners
shall delete Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 from
the array of the Respondents. Amendment

¶16

336.16WP

¶17

¶18

to be carried out forthwith. Reply filed
by Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 should not be
treated as a part of record of this
Criminal Writ Petition.

¶19

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent/
State. It appears that the A.D. was
registered and further investigation on
the basis of it has been done by the
Investigating Officer and the Report is
submitted to Taluka Executive Magistrate.

¶20

4.In our opinion, keeping in view the
pleadings in the Petition and prayers
made therein, it would be appropriate for
the petitioners to avail of the remedy by
filingthecomplaintbeforethe
Magistrate concerned. In case, the
petitioners file such complaint, the
Magistrate shall consider the same on its
own merits in accordance with law.

¶21

5.With the above observations, the
Petition stands dismissed.

¶22

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL,J) (S.S. SHINDE,J)

¶23

sga/

Sau Chandrakalabai W/O Sheshrao Kharat and Anr. v. the Secretary and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau Chandrakalabai W/O Sheshrao Kharat and Anr. v. the Secretary and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajim Shah @ Ajju S/O Amir Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay S/O Trimbak Naikwade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Baliram Hausaji Ingole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mukund S/O. Bharat Gofne and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kalabai Eknath Navle Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharad S/O Sadashiv Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.