Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Silloo Danjishaw Mistri vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 January, 2019

Author: Revati Mohite Dere

Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, Revati Mohite Dere

                                                                                 wp.4931.15.11.doc


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4931 OF 2015

            Silloo Danjishaw Mistri                                 ...Petitioner
                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                         ...Respondents


            Mr. Ajay Bhise I/b Mr. G. B. Lal for the Petitioner

            Mr. S. R. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondents-State

                                               CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                       REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

WEDNESDAY, 16th JANUARY 2019 P.C. :

1 Heard advocate Mr. Ajay Bhise, who has appeared upon instructions from advocate on record, only to assist the Court. 2 According to him, the present petition is filed by a wrong person. It is not by petitioner, whose name has been mentioned therein as petitioner, but some other person has assumed her identity and impersonating her, matter has been filed. 3 He states that when these facts were brought to notice of Court, initially, action was proposed against advocate on record and SQ Pathan 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:20:49 ::: wp.4931.15.11.doc also other advocate. By latter orders, action against advocates has been dropped. However, action against the person who has impersonated and other two persons was taken to logical end. Person found guilty of impersonating, was punished and that person has undergone the punishment. Action against other two persons is still going on.
4 In view of this development, it is apparent that present prayer for registering an offence is not by the complainant and a wrong person (a fraud person) has approached this Court assuming her identity.
5 We, therefore, dismiss present criminal writ petition.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

SQ Pathan 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:20:49 :::