Ashwin Wamanrao Salivkar v. State Of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Kotwali Nagpur

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 599 OF 2019 PETITIONERS :- 1.Ashwin Wamanrao Salivkar, aged about 54 years, occup. Service.

2.Jyoti Ashwin Salivkar, aged about 45 years, occup.Housewife.

3.Sharayu Ashwin Salivkar, Aged about 25 years, Occu.Student.

4.Vaidehi Ashwin Salivkar, aged about 16 years, Occup. Student.

All r/o 103, Manish Krutika Residency, Zenda Square, Kotwali, Mahal, Nagpur.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1.State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Officer, Police Station, Kotwali, Nagpur.

2.Bhushan Vijayrao Chauhan, aged about 36 years, Occup.Nil. R/o C/o Suresh Pawar, behind Shani Mandir, Chitnispura, Mahal Kotwali,Nagpur.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Soniya Gajbhiye, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Ghodeswar, AGP for respondent no.1.

Mr. R.R.Vyas, counsel for the respondent no.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE & AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATE : 17.02 .20 .

2/3 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.) Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3.

By this petition, the petitioners are questioning the registration of the First Information Report vide Crime No.189 of 2019 on 11.06.2019 for offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 294, 504, 506 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kotwali, Nagpur. 4.

It is seen from the record that these offences are registered by the police in compliance with the order passed by learned Adhoc District Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No.139 of 2019 decided on 06.06.2019. While allowing this application, the learned Adhoc District Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur had directed the concerned police station to register the First Information Report and investigate the matter. Initially, the petitioners had challenged

3/3 this order dated 06.06.2019, but later on, deleted the prayer challenging the same and seeking its quashing and cancellation. 5.

Once, it is accepted that the order dated 06.06.2019, directing the concerned police station to register the offences has attained finality, the action of the police station in registering the crime for the said offences, cannot be questioned by the petitioners.

6.

Therefore, we find that there is no substance, in this petition. The petition stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

JUDGE JUDGE