Amol v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 03 May 2012
- Bench
- A V POTDAR, P V HARDAS
Outcome
Dismissed
Consequently, this petition is dismissed with no
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Apparently, it seems that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint in respect of his illegal detention. It is also apparent that no demand has made by the petitioner for conducting any investigation or registration of the offence. Since there is no demand and…
Judgment
Mr.S.W.Munde, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, learned A.P.P. for respondent State Mr.S.N.Patil h/f. Mr.N.V.Gaware, learned counsel for respondent no.6 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.POTDAR, JJ.) DATE : 03/05/2012 PER COURT :
It appears that this petitioner is alleged to have been added by the respondents on 09/02/2011 and managed to extricate himself from the clutches of the respondents and was able to obtain his freedom on 18/12/2011.
The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.2 and 3 to conduct an inquiry and to take appropriate steps for initiating proceedings against respondents no.4 to 8 for the illegal detention of the petitioner. The petitioner also 2 prays for awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to him, to be saddled on respondents no.4 to 8.
On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents no.4 to 8 have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the respondents had not illegally detained the petitioner.
Operative part
Apparently, it seems that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint in respect of his illegal detention. It is also apparent that no demand has made by the petitioner for conducting any investigation or registration of the offence. Since there is no demand and consequently there is no denial, writ of mandamus can not be issued. In respect of the relief for payment of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in the light of the disputed questions of facts, it is not possible for this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction to arrive at a finding that the respondents no.4 to 8 had illegally detained the petitioner. We relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedies available in law. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/MAY 2012/cri.w.p.1193-11
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, this petition is dismissed with no
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 03 May 2012. The bench was A V POTDAR, P V HARDAS.
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.