Single judge of the Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction dismissed the criminal application filed by an applicant seeking to challenge a dismissal of a complaint for false evidence. The court held intervention was not warranted at the premature stage.
Liberty to move for similar relief at an appropriate stage of the proceedings.
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.
ISM
1 10.148.18 apl
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2018
Neeta T. Nariani
.....Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and another
....Respondents
Mr. Sandeep R. Karnik for the Applicant. Mr. S. R. Shinde APP for the State.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : MARCH 16, 2018.
P.C.
It appears that the complaint is filed by Constituted Power of
Attorney. As such, against one of the order, the Apex Court on 03/01/2014 observed that complainant may examine himself in view
of absence of specific averments in the complaint that the Power of Attorney has personal knowledge. It is also observed that in the
wake of Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of A. C.
Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2013 (11)
SCALE 360], the complaint shall stand dismissed. It is after this an
2 10.148.18 apl
application is filed based on a communication dated 01/11/1999 alleging that false evidence is given which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 23/06/2015 by the Metropolitan Magistrate. As such, this application.
2 Perused the order impugned. Having regard to the fact that prayer made by the petitioner was at pre-mature stage, in my opinion, no interference is warranted. Liberty to the petitioner to move for similar relief at an appropriate stage of the proceedings. Application stands dismissed.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint as the petition was at an premature stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A. C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and anotherReferred¶17
A. C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2013 (11) SCALE 360]
Neeta T. Nariani
The State of Maharashtra
Nitin W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
