Deepak v. Sunil Rajaram Patil & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 294, 323, 324, 395
- Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 s. 85
- Bombay Prohibition Act s. 85
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. In view of this, the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with a leave to approach the District & Sessions Judge in revision against the impugned order. Leave is granted with liberty as is available in law. Criminal Writ Petition No. 68/2012…
Judgment
Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioner ..... ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 14th February, 2012. PER COURT :
#1. Heard. Perused. A complaint urging for issuance of process under Sections 395, 324, 323, 294 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 was duly lodged before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amalner. The complainant verified its contents and thereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on perusal of the complaint and verification statement, issued process against the respondents/ accused under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class was not 2 Cri.W.P. No.68/2012 inclined to issue process under Sections 395, 294 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act and thereby refused to take cognizance of the said offences. Such refusal has an effect of finally terminating the rights of the complainant to get the process issued against the respondents/ accused.
#2. In view of this, the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with a leave to approach the District & Sessions Judge in revision against the impugned order. Leave is granted with liberty as is available in law. Criminal Writ Petition No. 68/2012 stands disposed off accordingly. fmp/cwp68.12 ( U.D. SALVI, J. )
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 294, 323, 324, 395; Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 — s. 85; Bombay Prohibition Act — s. 85.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Feb 2012. The bench was U D SALVI.
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.