Petitioners in a writ petition seeking quashment of proceedings were acquitted interregnum. The Court held that nothing survives and disposed of the petition accordingly.
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.
PB.Cri.WP.165-2023.doc
2024:BHC-AUG:9930-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 165 OF 2023
SHUBHAM DATTATRAYA RAJOD AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Shashikant E. Shekade Addl.PP for Respondents/State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 7 MAY 2024
PER COURT :
. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that this is a quashment proceeding, however petitioners have been acquitted interregnum.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
Najeeb
SHUBHAM DATTATRAYA RAJOD AND OTHERS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
MANGESH S. PATIL
SHAILESH P. BRAHME
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
