Dismissed

Mitesh Suresh Parmar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Sept 2021WP/2047/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner sought the production of respondent no.7, claiming marriage. After noting a prior identical petition in Rajasthan which was dismissed as withdrawn, the Bombay High Court dismissed the present petition as withdrawn but granted liberty to challenge the impugned order under Section 97 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order passed under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Mitesh Suresh Parmar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

917-CRIWP2047-2021.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2047 OF 2021

¶6

Mithesh Suresh Parmar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal, for the Petitioner. Smt. A. S. Pai, PP for the State/Respondent no.1. Ms. Racheeta R. Dhuru, for Respondent nos.5 to 7.

¶8

CORAM: S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED: 28^th SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶9

PC:-

¶10

Heard Mr. Bhujbal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dhuru, the learned Counsel for respondent nos.5 to 7.

¶11

This petition for habeas corpus is instituted to produce respondent no.7, with whom the petitioner claimed to have solemnized marriage.

¶12

When the petition was listed before this Court, on the previous occasion, the learned Counsel for respondent nos.5 to 7 had pointed out to the Court that the petitioner had instituted a petition for identical relief before the High Court of Judicature

¶13

for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. A copy of the order passed by a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court on 19^th May,2021 was

¶14

1/3

¶15

917-CRIWP2047-2021.DOC

¶16

tendered for the perusal of the Court.

¶17

The aforesaid order indicates that the petitioner had preferred a petition for habeas corpus, being D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.133/2021, and on 19^th May, 2021, the said petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn.

¶18

In pursuance of the aforesaid submission, we had directed the petitioner to place on record copy of Habeas Corpus Petition No.133/2021 filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur with annexures thereto.

¶19

Mr. Bhujbal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, now seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (“the Code”).

¶20

In view of the aforesaid submission, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail an appropriate remedy against the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 97 of the Code.

¶21

Ms. Dhuru, the learned Counsel for respondent nos.5 to 7, presses for costs as the petitioner had already invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court.

¶22

Since it is the claim of the petitioner that he has solemnized marriage with respondent no.1, we do not deem it

¶23

2/3

¶24

917-CRIWP2047-2021.DOC

¶25

appropriate to saddle the petitioner with costs.

¶26

Subject to the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands dismissed.

¶27

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶28

[S. S. SHINDE, J.]

¶29

3/3

Mitesh Suresh Parmar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitesh Suresh Parmar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Bhaurao Bhangare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suvarna Abasaheb Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/s Shreeji Jwelers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bajarang Devidas Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sadashiv Vitthal Ghodke and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lalit Govardhan Loya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.