A PIL petition sought directions to lodge FIRs for certain offences. The court advised recourse to Section 156(3) CrPC and declined to entertain the petition, dismissing it.
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.
401-CrPIL-6-2024
Pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 6 OF 2024
Rajesh Hiraman Lokhande .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Respondents
Mr. Gautam Kanchanpurkar and Prathamesh R. Salve for petitioner.
Mr. H. S. Venegavkar, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Kiran C. Shinde, APP for State.
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE: 20th MARCH, 2024
Digitally signed byPRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2024.03.21 10:09:09 +0530
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Venegavkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the Staterespondents.
2. A perusal of the prayer clause of the PIL petition reveals that the petitioner is essentially seeking a direction to the respondents to lodge some FIR under certain offences.
3. For the said purpose, petitioner will be better advised to take recourse to the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL petition, which is hereby dismissed.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
1
1 issue framed by the court
Should the High Court entertain a PIL seeking direction to lodge an FIR, or should the petitioner use the Section 156(3) CrPC route?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh Hiraman Lokhande
State of Maharashtra
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Arif S. Doctor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
