Petitioner sought direction to register an FIR for offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The bench dismissed the petition noting a private complaint had already been filed, stating the grievance was not disclosed in the present petition.
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.
34 wp 634-17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 634 of 2017
Sachin Uddhav Shinde .. Petitioner
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr.P.G.Sarda for the Petitioner. Mrs. A.S.Pai, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED : 6th APRIL, 2017.
P.C. :
respondent nos.2 to 4 to register an FIR against the accused persons (concerned Officers of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation)
and the Contractors for the offences under Section 420, 468, 199,
200, 120B r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Prevention of Corruption Act.
2016 the Petitioner has already filed a private complaint in respect
1 of 2
salgaonkar
34 wp 634-17.doc
of the grievance made in this petition. The said fact of filing a private complaint, is not even disclosed in the present petition. We are not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
2 of 2
salgaonkar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present petition should be entertained given the existence of a filed private complaint
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Sachin Uddhav Shinde
The State of Maharashtra
RANJIT MORE
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
