Petitioners seeking quashing of an FIR reported that parties had settled the dispute and the complainant supported the quashing prayer. The court noted the allegations were serious and investigation was in progress, decided to allow the investigation to proceed, and adjourned the matter.
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.
18.WP.1058.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1058 OF 2024
Pundlik @ Prakash Layappa Koli and others Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents
Mr.Rajeev Chavan, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr.V.V.Purvant for Petitioners.
Mr.Vignesh Ashokan i/by Mr.Rushikesh Kale, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, Additional P.P for State.
MrKiran S. Chavan, Mandrup Police Station, present.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK AND N.R.BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 12th April 2024
PC :
MST
MANISH Digitally signed byMANISH SURESHRAO SURESHRAO THATTE THATTE Date: 2024.04.1610:14:08 +0530
Pundlik @ Prakash Layappa Koli and others
The State of Maharashtra
Prakash D. Naik
N.R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
