Petition disposed as F.I.R. registered under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. not challenged. Court leaves issue regarding special court terminology for appropriate proceeding. Amicus fees quantified.
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.
2023:BHC-AUG:27081-DB
wp1011.23
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
932 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1011 OF 2023
Gorakh Sitaram Waghmare VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and others
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. N.S. Shah APP for Respondent-State: Mr. V.K. Kotecha Mr. V. P. Bakal, advocate, appointed to assist the Court
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 20th DECEMBER, 2023.
PER COURT :-
Heard.
(Criminal writ petition No. 108 of 2021 decided on 21.10.2022) he would submit that it is only the special court which will be termed to be Magistrate’s court for taking cognizance and for passing order
wp1011.23
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. However, since the F.I.R. registered pursuant to the said order is not challenged in this petition, we leave it to be decided in appropriate proceeding.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (R. G. AVACHAT, J.)
rlj/
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Murlidharji Ladda vs. The State of Maharashtra and anotherRelied on¶13
Ajay Murlidharji Ladda vs. The State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal writ petition No. 108 of 2021 decided on 21.10.2022)
Gorakh Sitaram Waghmare
The State of Maharashtra
R. G. AVACHAT
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
