The Single Judge, exercising criminal appellate jurisdiction, noted that a charge had been framed during the pendency of the writ petition. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition for quashing the charge sheet without considering the merits, keeping future contentions 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.
crwp4822
1
ssp
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4822 OF 2015
Office Notes, Office
Memorandam of Coram,
appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders
or directions and
Registrar’s orders
Ms Latika Belingade for the Petitioner
Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
CORAM :A.S.OKA AND
R.D.DHANUKA,JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2016
P.C.
1The learned counsel for the
petitioner states that during the
pendency of this petition, even a
charge has been framed. Hence, at this
stage, this petition for quashing the
charge sheet cannot be entertained.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed
of. All contentions on merits are kept
open.
(R.D.DHANUKA,J)(A.S.OKA,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for quashing a charge sheet can be entertained once a charge has been framed during the pendency of the petition.
Petitioner
Respondent No.1 and 3
A.S. Oka
R.D. Dhankuka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court