Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Mansingh Khumsingh Parmar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 9 June, 2023

Author: Gauri Godse

Bench: Revati Mohite Dere, Gauri Godse

2023:BHC-AS:15524-DB

                                                                                907-wpst.9066.2023.doc


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.9066 OF 2023

                    Mansingh Khumsingh Parmar                             ...Petitioner
                          Versus
                    State of Maharashtra and Ors.                         ...Respondents

                    Mr. Manish Jaini/b S. M. Jain Associates, for the Petitioner.
                    Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - State.
                    PSI - Mr. S. Patil a/w API - Shatrughan Patil, RCF Police Station,
                    Mumbai, is present.

                                                     CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
                                                             GAURI GODSE, JJ.

DATE : 9th JUNE 2023 P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not press for prayer clause 'D'. He states that the petitioner will take appropriate steps before the appropriate Court, with respect to the said prayer clause 'D', which reads as under:-

"D. To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in that nature directing the respondent no.3 to take cognizance by registering the F.I.R. against the respondent no. 4 and 5 for offence N. S. Chitnis 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 21:53:12 ::: 907-wpst.9066.2023.doc punishable under section 182, 211, 384, 499 r/w 500 of I.P.C."

3. As far as, prayer clauses 'B', 'C' and 'E' are concerned, the same read as under:-

"B. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in that nature directing the respondent no.3 not to harass the petitioner on the complaint done by the respondent no.4 and 5 without any proper procedure and evidence against the petitioner as per observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter between Dr. Rini Johar and Anr. Vs State of M.P. and Ors.

C. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in that nature directing the respondent no.3 not to violate the constitution rights of petitioner provided under article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India, without any proper procedure and evidence against the petitioner on the complaint done by the respondent no. 4 and 5 as per observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter between Dr. Rini Johar and Anr. Vs State of M.P and Ors.

E. To direct the respondent no. 3 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent no. 4 and 5, till pendency of the above said petition."

907-wpst.9066.2023.doc

4. Learned APP on instructions states that the petitioner was called to the police station only for the purpose of an enquiry. She states that if the complicity of the petitioner is seen during the course of the enquiry, the petitioner will be given 72 hours notice. Statement accepted.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition.

6. Petition is disposed of as not pressed, on the aforesaid terms.

7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

GAURI GODSE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. N. S. Chitnis 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 21:53:12 :::