Smt. Mangala Wd/O Dilip Wagh v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary For Home Department, Mumbai And Others

cwp63.15 1/2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

Criminal Writ Petition No.63/2015 Smt. Mangala wd/o Dilip Wagh Vs. State of Mah. and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. A. Marathe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ukey, APP for the respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : A.B. Chaudhari & P.N. Deshmukh, JJ.

DATE : 10.04.2015.

Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties. Following is the crux of the affidavit-in-reply dated 13.3.2015 in paragraph 11 by P.S.I. Shri Y.V. Ingle, Nandanvan Police Station, Nagpur City:- "11. It is submitted that, the respondent no.3 with best possible efforts investigated the matter thoroughly and recorded statements of eye witnesses as well as other witnesses. Finally after completion of the investigation, on 20.12.2014 submitted final report vide Charge-sheet No.293/14 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Nagpur against accused Prakash Kisan Mankar driver of tipper bearing Registration No.MH-31-CQ-9243 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code.

In view of the above referred facts and circumstances, appropriate order may be passed". The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would like to withdraw the instant writ petition but liberty to take

cwp63.15 2/2 such steps, as available in law, before the Magistrate may be granted.

We accept the request and make the following order:- Order Criminal Writ Petition No.63/2015 is disposed of, in view of the averments made in paragraph 11 of the affidavit-inreply, reserving the liberty in favour of petitioner to take such steps as available in law before the Competent Court. JUDGE JUDGE AMBULKAR