Writ Petition No. 423 of 2011 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 205
Judgment
Mr. Yusuf Bombaywala, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. T.A. Mirza, Addl. P. P. for the respondents. C ORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2011. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha to file a complaint against original accused No.4 for an offence punishable under Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that on the day on which the criminal trial was fixed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Wardha, original accused No.4, who was absent, was allegedly represented someone else and thus according to the petitioner, an offence punishable under Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code had been committed. The petitioner accordingly moved the trial Court for taking action against original accused No.4 and the person who 2 had posed himself as original accused No.4. The trial Court directed an enquiry and it appears that after conclusion of the enquiry, an enquiry afresh also came to be directed. Presently, it appears that an enquiry is being conducted by the trial Court and is said to be pending. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is a premature petition. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the aforesaid petition. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in respect of the same reliefs after conclusion of the enquiry by the trial Court and after the trial Court decides the application filed by the petitioner requesting the trial Court to file a complaint against original accused No.4 and the person, who had posed himself as original accused No.4. In that light of the matter, we, therefore, dismiss the petition with liberty as stated hereinabove. As the enquiry is pending, we, therefore, direct the trial Court to complete the aforesaid enquiry as expeditiously as possible. JUDGE JUDGE.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 205.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 25 Aug 2011. The bench was P V HARDAS, S B DESHMUKH.
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.