Dismissed

Sandesh Shivajirao Potdar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC30 Jul 2021WP/783/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a magistrate's direction for police inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The petition relied on a previous decision regarding an accused who is a police officer. The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to raise the specific grievance or cite the relevant precedent in their application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to make a fresh request to the Magistrate to hold inquiry personally.

Sandesh Shivajirao Potdar Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

911-criwp783-21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

911 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.783 OF 2021

¶4

SANDESH SHIVAJIRAO POTDAR

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners : Potdar Eklavya Sandesh
APP for Respondent State: Mr.R.B.Bagul

¶8

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
 DATE : 30/07/2021

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P.

¶11

2]It seems that the petitioner who has filed a private complaint is
aggrieved by the direction of the Magistrate to the police to conduct inquiry
under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.

¶12

3]It appears that the petitioner is aggrieved mainly because the accused
respondent no.4 is a Police Officer and since the impugned direction is to
police to carry out investigation/inquiry, it may not be fair.

¶13

4]The learned advocate points out the decision of this Court in the case
of Bismilla Shah V/s State of Maharashtra; 2001 SCC online Bom 918,
wherein in similar state of facts and circumstances, instead of directing the
police to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., this Court had
directed the Magistrate to hold that inquiry himself under the self same
enabling provision.

¶14

1/2

¶15

911-criwp783-21.odt

¶16

5]However, conspicuously neither the impugned order demonstrates
that any such request was made by the petitioner nor the memo of petition
comes out with any such ground, firstly, of making a request to the
Magistrate to hold inquiry himself and, secondly, referring to the view of this
Court in the case of Bismilla Shah (supra).

¶17

6]In view of the above state of affairs, the Writ Petition is dismissed with
a liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh request to the Magistrate on the
lines discussed hereinabove and directing the concerned Magistrate to
consider the request on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations
made hereinabove.

¶18

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶19

umg

¶20

2/2

Sandesh Shivajirao Potdar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandesh Shivajirao Potdar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Shivaji Barve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Babita Angat Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Annasaheb Lahanu Ghuge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jyoti Kalyan Thakur and Anr. Vs Kalyan Narayansingh Thakur

Shaikh Shahin Shaikh Sardar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rohit @ Dichya S/O. Nana Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra