The High Court of Bombay at Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction dismissed the writ petition as infructuous on the grounds of its prolonged pendency of over two years, even though the petitioner's counsel was absent during the hearing.
Petition dismissed as infructuous due to pendency.
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.
Dusane 1/1 18 wp 3767.2018.doc
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3767 OF 2018
(Divya Dipak Jogave Vs. Dipak Rajaram Jogave & Ors.)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's Orders
None for Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for State.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J
DATE : 8th January, 2020
P.C.:-
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent.
Heard learned APP.
2.The order impugned is dated 22nd April 2017
whereby the learned JMFC has called upon say of
other side.
3.Considering the pendency of the petition for last
more than 2 years, in my opinion, the petition has
rendered infructuous.
4. Petition dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition has become infructuous due to prolonged pendency.
Divya Dipak Jogave
Dipak Rajaram Jogave & Ors.
Nitin W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court