Disposed

Smita Vishwakarma Wife of Rajnish Vishwakarma and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2021WP/2775/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the High Court of Bombay CAJ held that a prayer to restrain specific accused persons is unenforceable as it demands continuous court monitoring. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the authorities to look into the complaint per law but denied broader relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; relief to restrain accused was denied as unenforceable; authorities directed to investigate complaint.

Smita Vishwakarma Wife of Rajnish… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

31-wp-2775-21

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2775 OF 2021

¶5

Smita Vishwakarma & Anr. ..Petitioners Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Yash Mishra i/b. V. Shukla & Associates for Petitioners. Ms. S. D. Shinde, APP for State/Respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 9 DECEMBER 2021

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. The Petition is based on the representation made to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Senior Inspector of Police, Samata Nagar, Kandivali. The Representation states that the Petitioner is apprehending danger from the persons named in the complaint. The Petition is filed for a direction to the authorities to take cognizance of the complaint and to take necessary action.

¶12

Digitally signed byVINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2021.12.15 13:57:23 +0530

¶13

The relief sought for in the Petition that Respondents be directed to restrain the persons named in the complaint and prevent them from outraging modesty of the Petitioner No.1 is very widely

¶14

Gokhale

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

231-wp-2775-21

¶17

stated, requires continuous monitoring by the Court and is unenforceable under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶18

As per position in law when a complaint is made to the police station by a citizen, police are required to look into the complaint and take necessary action as per law as may be warranted. The Senior Inspector of Police should do the same in respect of the Petitioners.

¶19

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶20

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶21

2 of 2

Smita Vishwakarma Wife of Rajnish Vishwakarma and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smita Vishwakarma Wife of Rajnish Vishwakarma and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Rajib Kumar Purohit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nanasaheb Piraji Doke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amit Vijay Redlan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Reza Borhani Shidani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited through Its Authorised Representative Mr. Nikhil Rodrigues Vs Directorate of Enforcement Thru the Deputy Director Ms. N. Ananthie and Anr.

Aditya Birla Finance Limited, through Authorised Representative Mr. Nikhil Rodrigues Vs Directorate of Enforcement Thru the Deputy Director Ms. N. Ananthie and Anr.