The High Court disposed of the writ petition as nothing survives after a summary report was submitted and accepted by the learned Magistrate during the pendency of the petition.
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.
SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVESDate: 2021.10.05 GONSALVES 17:19:46 +0530
1/1
sg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3215 OF 2018
Vishnu Hanumant Phad .. Petitioner v/s.
.. Police Inspector & Ors. Respondents
Mr. Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, i/b. Nitin Deshpande, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent/State.
CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & SARANG V. KOTWAL JJ.
DATE : 4 OCTOBER 2021.
P.C:-
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that during the pendency of the petition, the Investigating Authorities have submitted “A Summary Report”, which, according to the learned Counsel, has been accepted by the learned Magistrate. He states that in view of these developments, nothing survives in this petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
1 of 1
Vishnu Hanumant Phad
Police Inspector & Ors.
Nit Jamdhar
Sarang V Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
