The High Court at Bombay held that the criminal writ petition was infructuous proceedings as the case was part-heard with no relief required in the present proceeding and both proceedings were disposed of.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 169 OF 2006
WITH APPLN/3031/2008
NARENDRA BHASKARRAO PATIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. U.R. Awate h/f. Mr. S. B. Talekar APP for Respondent/State : Mr. V.S. Badakh Advocate for Respondent 13 : Mr. P.R. Patil Advocate for Respondent 106 : Mr. P.V. Barde Advocate for Respondent 61 : Mr. G.A. Nagori Advocate for Respondent 8 : Mr. N.G. Suryawanshi
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND S.M. GAVHANE, JJ. DATED : December 18, 2017
ORDER :
. The submissions made show that chargesheet is already filed, the case is part heard and even the statements under section 313 of Cr.P.C. are recorded and case is kept for defence evidence. Nothing survive in the present proceedings. If the petitioners want any other reliefs, he can take separate steps by approaching proper authority. Both the proceedings are disposed of as infructuous.
[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
Narendra Bhaskarrao Patil
The State of Maharashtra
T.V. NALAWADE
S.M. GAVHANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
