✦ Bombay High Court

Judgment · High Court

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Mr. J. M. Puranik, advocate for the applicant. Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR CORAM ANDANDAND V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Mrs. Mrs. Mrs. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATEDATEDATE : OCTOBER 18, 2007. : OCTOBER 18, 2007. : OCTOBER 18, 2007. P.C. . Heard. Learned advocate for the applicant states enable applicant approach concerned S. 173(8) Cr.P.C., account failure police authorities complete investigation proper manner, applicant craves a withdraw present application. Accordingly, application is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of as withdrawn. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] [[[ R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] Sd/- Sd/- V. K. TAHILRAMANI,J.] [Smt. V. K. TAHILRAMANI,J.] [Smt. V. K. TAHILRAMANI,J.] [Smt.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Application No. 63 of 2007). ← Search more judgments