Dimple Sandeep Mahinda & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 17 Aug 2010
- Bench
- ANOOP V MOHTA, B H MARLAPALLE
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. Anas Shaikh i/by Jamila Shaikh for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for State. Mr. N.N. Gavankar with Mr. Arfan Sait for R. Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 17TH AUGUST, 2010 P. C.: Heard. Petitioners were aggrieved by the show cause notice issued under Section 107 read with section 111 of the Cr.P..C. The learned A.P.P. based on the written instructions received by the Tardeo Police Station states that the proceedings were filed and order under section 117 of the Cr.P.C. has already been passed. Petitioners have furnished their bonds on 5.5.2010. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also faced the same proceedings and they have furnished bonds on 4.5.2010 and 7.5.2010. Obviously these are counter complaints against each other. Nothing further survives in this petition and the same is disposed of as infructuous. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.)
(B.H. MARLAPALLE,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 117.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 17 Aug 2010. The bench was ANOOP V MOHTA, B H MARLAPALLE.
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.