The High Court at Aurangabad refused to entertain a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy before the Sessions Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure if they were not already advised.
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.
446.16WP
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 446 OF 2016
JITENDRA S/O LILACHAND PATIL AND OTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Advocate for petitioners : Mr.B.R. Warma
APP for Respondent/State:Mr.K.S. Patil
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Dated: September 07, 2016
Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent/
State.
2.We are not inclined to entertain the
present Petition. In case the petitioners
are advised, they can seek appropriate
remedy provided under the Code of
Criminal Procedure before the Sessions
Court. In case, if such remedy is availed
by the petitioners within four weeks from
446.16WP
today, the concerned Court shall consider
the same in accordance with law.
3.The Petition stands dismissed in
above terms.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL,J) (S.S. SHINDE,J)
sga/
JITENDRA S/O LILACHAND PATIL AND OTHER
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
S.S. SHINDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court