Remanded

Dr.Omprakash B Soniminde v. Ratan B. Datwani and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Mar 2023WP/1705/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed a revisional order that permitted an accused to participate in criminal proceedings prior to the issuance of process. The Court held that such participation violates well-settled legal principles and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned revisional order dated 10th March 2016 is quashed and proceedings remanded back to the revisional Court for decision afresh.

Dr.Omprakash B Soniminde Vs Ratan B. Datwani… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

33-wp1705-2016.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1705 OF 2016

¶5

Digitally signed byATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2023.03.23 18:04:47 +0530

¶6

Dr. Omprakash B. Soniminde… Petitioner
V/s.
Ratan B. Datwani & Anr.… Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rishi Bhuta with Mr. Ujjwal Gandhi and Ms.
Gunjan Thakkar for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Ajay L. Bhise for respondent no.1.

¶9

Mr. M.G. Patil, APP for respondent no.2/State.

¶10

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶11

DATED:MARCH 23, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1.The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 10th
March 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater
Mumbai in Criminal Revision Application No.110 of 2016 setting
aside order of issuance of process by the Metropolitan Magistrate
71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai in C.C. No.229/SW/2013 dated 8th
October 2015.

¶14

2.The revisional Court has set aside the order of issuance of
process mainly on the ground that without waiting for report of
inquiry under section 202, order of issuance of process was passed.

¶15

3.Apart from the said ground, it is urged on behalf of the
petitioner that the impugned order permits accused to participate

¶16

¶17

33-wp1705-2016.doc

¶18

in criminal proceedings before issuance of process.

¶19

4.Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the
ground of non-receipt of 202 inquiry report is factually incorrect as
the inquiry report was already placed on record of the Magistrate.

¶20

5.In so far as the direction issued by the revisional Court
permitting the accused to participate in the proceedings before
issuance of process, same being contrary to the well settled
principles of law deserves to be set aside. Hence, following order:

¶21

a)The impugned order dated 10th March 2016 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Criminal Revision
Application No.110 of 2016 is quashed and set aside;

¶22

b)The proceedings are remanded back to the revisional Court
for decision afresh on merits.

¶23

6.The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No
costs.

¶24

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶25

Dr.Omprakash B Soniminde v. Ratan B. Datwani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Omprakash B Soniminde v. Ratan B. Datwani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Singh Duggal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kosha Investment Limited and Anr. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs Kosha Investment Limited

Shri Popat Eknath Vadje (Since Decd) through Lrs. and Ors. vs Shri Bandu Shankar Datir and Ors.

Muzaffar Dawood Kazi Vs He State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray Vs the State of Maharashtra