The Court disposed of the petition observing that the FIR disclosed only non-cognizable offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The Court found no material to suggest a cognizable offence and directed the petitioner to approach the Magistrate for relief.
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.
2024:BHC-NAG:11820-DB
1 05-wp 847.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRI.WRIT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2024
( Smt.Dwarkabai w/o Damduji Dakhole vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.
Mr. Nikhil Tekade, Advocate for the applicant. Ms.Sneha Dhote, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2024
( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )
( VINAY JOSHI, J. )
KOLHE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the police were justified in registering a non-cognizable offence instead of a cognizable one based on the FIR.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt.Dwarkabai w/o Damduji Dakhole
State of Maharashtra and others
VINAY JOSHI
ABHAY J. MANTRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
