A criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR was partly allowed. The High Court ordered quashing of charges against the first petitioner, while allowing investigation against the second petitioner and others to continue.
Impugned FIR quashed and set aside to the extent registering offences against Petitioner No.1.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 105 OF 2019
VIVEK VATS AND ANR., ... Petitioners
Versus
DINESH KUMARI SHARMA AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents
Mr. Arun De Sa, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. D. Lawande and Mr. Amogh Prabhudessai, Advocates for the Respondent no.1. Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr. P. Kanekar, Advocate for the Respondent no.4.
Coram:C. V. BHADANG & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.
Date:11th October, 2019
P.C.
Mr. De Sa, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are only restricting the prayer for quashing of the FIR insofar as the petitioner no.1 is concerned. In other words, the prayer for quashing of the FIR in relation to petitioner no.2, is not pressed.
WPCR/105/2019
2
NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.
C. V. BHADANG, J.
arp/*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR is liable to be quashed insofar as it concerns the petitioner no.1 (the first respondent's husband).
Vivek Vats and Anr.
Dinesh Kumari Sharma and 3 Ors.
C. V. Bhadang
Nutan D. Sardeesai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
