Dismissed

Sharad Ashok Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2024WP/383/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of a criminal writ petition as it was deemed unnecessary to entertain it separately, given the pendency of a revision application before the Sessions Judge, directing the lower court to decide the revision expeditiously. Complete hearing on merits was not conducted.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with direction to the Sessions Judge to decide the pending revision application expeditiously.

Sharad Ashok Agarwal Vs State of Maharashtra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Date: 2024.03.13 11:57:00 +0530

¶2

NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS

¶3

7-wp.383.2024.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.383 OF 2024

¶6

Sharad Ashok Agarwal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Yashpal Thakur, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. R. M. Pethe, A.P.P for the Respondent – State.

¶9

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 8^th MARCH 2024

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

It is not in dispute that after a complaint letter was addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Pune on 13^th October 2020, without waiting for the report of the hand-writing-expert, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the learned

1/3

N. S. Chitnis

7-wp.383.2024.doc

Magistrate, rejected the said prayer of the petitioner seeking investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, against which the petitioner has filed a Revision Application before the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, being Criminal Revision Application No.198 of 2023.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interregnum, after the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for 156(3) investigation and after Criminal Revision Application was filed, the petitioner received the FSL Report.

¶19

Admittedly, the FSL Report was not placed before the learned JMFC. Be that as it may, since the Criminal Revision Application is filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Pune and the learned Sessions Judge, is seized of the matter, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain the aforesaid petition which seeks a direction for registration an FIR.

2/3

N. S. Chitnis

7-wp.383.2024.doc

We make it clear, that we have not heard the petition on merits and as such all contentions of all parties on merits are kept open. We also make it clear, that we are not inclined to entertain the petition only because the petitioner's revision application is pending before the learned Sessions Judge. We are informed that the Criminal Revision Application is pending since 2023 and as such direct the learned Sessions Judge to decide the said Revision Application expeditiously.

¶24

The petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid

¶25

observations.

¶26

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶27

3/3

¶28

N. S. Chitnis

Sharad Ashok Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad Ashok Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anwar Abdul Aziz Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anwar Abdul Aziz Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manju Shivprasad Upadhyay Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

State of Maharashtra Vs the Child in Conflict With Law and Anr.

Sushil Ranjitsing Jangu Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhavik Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.