Petitioners sought leave to withdraw their writ petition. The prosecution stated that petitioners were summoned as witnesses under Section 160 Cr.P.C. rather than as accused. Leave was granted and the petition was disposed of.
Leave granted to withdraw the writ 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.
Mhi
WP-1208-18.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1208 OF 2018
Prashant Vitthal Jadhav & Ors. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents
Mr.Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. A.S.Mhaispurkar i/b. Mr Kamlesh Mali, for the Petitioners. Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP, for the State. Mr. Ajit Hon for respondent No.2.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,JJ. DATE :19th March, 2018.
P.C. :
Mr. Shinde, learned APP, on instructions of the officer
concerned, makes a statement that a notice under Section 160 of
Cr.P.C. is issued to the witnesses although their names figure in
the FIR as accused. The petitioners are duty-bound to co-operate in
the investigation. In support of his submission, he placed on record the report dated 19.3.2018 by the Assistant Police Inspector, Dombivali Police Station. The same is taken on record.
Mhi
WP-1208-18.doc
2
and they are being called as witnesses.
[SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.]
[RANJIT MORE,J.]
Prashant Vitthal Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
Ranjit More
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
