Pending writ petition seeking criminal remedies was disposed of because the petitioners were advised by the Tahsildar to approach the higher authority under the Tenancy Act or proceed under criminal law.
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.
1
21.wp3784-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3784 OF 2021
Krishna Sakharam @ Sitaram Patil and another …. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others …. Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Advocate i/b. Abdullah Katlariwala, for the Petitioners.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondents-State.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : 20 OCTOBER 2021
P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned APP for the State.
Digitally signed byPRADIPKUMAR PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAO PRAKASHRAODESHMANE DESHMANE Date: 2021.10.21 10:47:17 +0530
1 / 2
2
21.wp3784-21.odt
Tahsildar is correct. The Petitioners can either approach the higher authority under the Tenancy Act or set the criminal law in motion on their own if so advised.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
2 / 2
Krishna Sakharam @ Sitaram Patil and another
The State of Maharashtra and others
Nitin Jamdar
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court