Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
string, string
Pushpa Pandurang Mokal and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the application and the original fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. procedural analysis of the investigating officer's authority. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. final judgment and order of the court. (Para 8) |
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the Application, forthwith taken up for final disposal. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and the directions which we propose to issue, in our opinion, notice to the second Respondent is not necessary.
2. The second Respondent is the First Informant, at whose instance CR.216/15 was registered with CBD Police Station, Navi Mumbai. The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under S.420, S.465, S.467, S.468, and 471 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the Application, it is pointed out that the Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has filed a final report under S.169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vashi at Navi Mumbai. The report was filed on 7 April, 2016. The report is for claiming "C" - summary. It
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
