Dismissed

Bhausaheb Vithoba Varpe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Nov 2019WP/1621/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pune, to dispose of a pending application for recording a statement under Section 164 CrPC within six weeks. The court disposed of the writ petition and intervened application without expressing any opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, to decide the pending application under Section 164 CrPC within 6 weeks.

Bhausaheb Vithoba Varpe Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

910-wp.1621.2018.doc

1/3

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1621 OF 2018

¶6

Bhausaheb Vithoba Varpe ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.250 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1621 OF 2018

¶8

Dr. Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe ...Intervenor (Applicant/Orig. Accused)

¶9

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶10

Bhausaheb Vithoba Varpe ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶11

Mr. Niteen Pradhan a/w Mr. Shubham Kanade i/b Mr. U. R. Mankapure, for the Petitioner.

¶12

Ms. P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent - State.

¶13

Mr. M.S. Mohite, for the Intervenor.

¶14

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 21^st NOVEMBER, 2019

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

910-wp.1621.2018.doc

¶18

2/3

¶19

Perused the papers. It appears that the petitioner has filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, in R.C.C. No.2459 of 2008, requesting the learned Magistrate to record his statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the said application was filed on 15^th November, 2017.

¶20

Considering the fact that the said application is pending before the learned Magistrate, it would be appropriate, to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, to decide the said application, on its own merits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶21

Petition is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

¶22

It is made clear, that this Court has not expressed any opinion

¶23

on the merits of the petition. All contentions of all the parties are kept open. Learned Counsel for the parties, assure to co-operate with the learned Magistrate in the expeditious disposal of the said application.

¶24

910-wp.1621.2018.doc

¶25

3/3

¶26

In view of the aforesaid, the Intervention Application being Criminal Application No.250 of 2018, does not survive and the same is also disposed of.

¶27

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Bhausaheb Vithoba Varpe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhausaheb Vithoba Varpe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratima Sanjay Bhalerao and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Apsara Traders, Vita through Prop. Musa Jangilal Sayyad Vs Dilip Narayandas Parmar and Ors.

Khan Nazia Banu M. Abrar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Praful Anant Gavkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satish Baban Kanchan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhawal Ravindra Lagwankar and Ors. Vs Snehal Dhawal Lagwankar and Anr.