High Court in Criminal Application dismissed applicant's petition. Court declined to examine criminal trial or quash FIR, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction.
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.
9.apl238.19.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 238 OF 2019
Pankaj Jethanand Wadwani. ...Applicant. Versus
The State of Maharashtra & anr.
...Respondents.
Mr. Akanksha Helaskar i/b. VMK Legal, advocate for applicant. Smt. Aruna S. Pai, APP for State.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2019.
P.C.:
1 Case of the respondent No. 2-complainant as is apparent from the report is about cheating. Contention is after engagement and accepting an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and gold chain, for no apparent reason, engagement has been broken and respondent No.2 has been cheated.
2 Whether facts or material on record are sufficient to constitute offence either under section 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be examined at this stage. We however, keep those contentions open.
Talwalkar
9.apl238.19.doc
2
3 We are not inclined to intervene in an extraordinary jurisdiction. Rejected.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J)
Talwalkar
Pankaj Jethanand Wadwani
The State of Maharashtra
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
SADHANA S. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
