Criminal Writ Petition seeking intervention for police inaction. The bench held that adequate remedy exists under Section 156(3) CrPC. Consequently, the court did not exercise its writ jurisdiction and disposed 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.
52.WP 3592.21.doc
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3592 OF 2021
George Manjo Industries Pvt. Ltd.
… Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
... Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Sawant a/w. Shamiana for the Petitioner Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent - State
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : 8 OCTOBER 2021
P.C. :-
Grievance of the Petitioner is that the Police Authorities are not taking any cognizance of his complaint. This eventuality is squarely covered in Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the Petitioner has adequate remedies. In the light of the alternate remedy available in law, we do not intend to exercise the writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of
SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
NITIN JAMDAR, J.
JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR
Digitally signed by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2021.10.12 11:33:41 +0530
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction when Section 156(3) CrPC provides an adequate alternative remedy.
Whether the court will entertain the writ petition given the police inaction on a complaint.
George Manjo Industries Pvt. Ltd.
State of Maharashtra
Nitin Jamdar
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
