Disposed

Madhuri W/O Surendra Mahakalkar v. the State of Maharashtrathrough Pso Ps Wardha and Other

Bombay HC6 Sept 2024WP/714/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant alleged improper investigation; a 'B' final report was filed with her protest petition pending. She sought directions that her pending application for documents be decided first and that an unimplemented Magistrate's order be enforced. Court disposed of petition permitting fresh applications to the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file applications to the Magistrate for priority decision and compliance; no other relief granted.

Madhuri W/O Surendra Mahakalkar Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:10151-DB

¶2

1 908.wp.714.24

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 714/2024

¶5

Smt. Madhuri w/o. Surendra Mahakalkar

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

¶11

Mr. Raju Kadu, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms S. S. Jachak, A.P.P. for Respondents/State.

¶12

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 06/09/2024.

¶13

. Heard.

¶14

The petitioner has filed a police report in which investigation was not conducted in proper manner. In the result, the petitioner had approached to this Court by Writ Petition No.680/2020. In the said petition, the prosecution made a statement that after the investigation, the Investigating Agency has prepared ‘B’ Final report, which would be filed in the Court of Magistrate. This Court also directed the Magistrate to give a right of hearing to the complainant i.e. the petitioner and to decide ‘B’ Final report in accordance with law.

¶15

In pursuance of that the petitioner appeared in ‘B’ summary and filed his protest petition. During pendency, the petitioner has filed an application dated 09.06.2022 requesting the Court to decide said application calling certain documents before finally deciding ‘B’ final report. It is the petitioner’s grievance that the said application is still pending, which ought to have been decided earlier. As regards to the said prayer is concerned,

¶16

2 908.wp.714.24

¶17

the petitioner shall make separate application with the reasons requesting the Magistrate to decide said application first, on which, the Magistrate having regard to the facts and circumstances, take appropriate steps and pass necessary orders.

¶18

The petitioner has also sought direction that the order passed by the Magistrate dated 06.07.2023 on petitioner’s application dated 12.06.2023 be directed to be implemented. The Magistrate vide said order directed the concerned police to supply documents which are found to be necessary. Since the order of Magistrate has not been complied, the petitioner has to approach the same Court for taking further necessary steps for compliance, which are permissible under law.

¶19

If such applications are filed, the Magistrate shall hear both sides and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶20

The petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶21

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)

¶22

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶23

RGurnule

Madhuri W/O Surendra Mahakalkar v. the State of Maharashtrathrough Pso Ps Wardha and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuri W/O Surendra Mahakalkar v. the State of Maharashtrathrough Pso Ps Wardha and Other

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

Shailesh S/O P. Sapkal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps City Kotwali Akola Tah. and Dist.Akola and Another

Nargis Zuber Sheikh (Sister in Law) Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Nagpuri Gate Amravati and Another

Nitin S/O Pandharinath Idare Vs State of Mha. Thr. Pso Sonegaon Nagpur and Another

Shahezad Khan Shammi Khan vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Home Dep.(Spl) Mantralaya Mumbai and Anothr

Tulsi S/O Prabhas Barikdar Vs State of Mha. Thr. Shri Jaypal Vasant Rathod Pso Sitabuldi Dist.Nagpur and 2 Others

Anil Jaydayal Taneja Vs State of Maharashtra through Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and Another