Devang Dinesh Parmar v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS.
Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date:
2025.03.25 16:59:59 +0530 RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1404 OF 2025 Devang Dinesh Parmar
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. Devang D. Parmar, Petitioner present in-person. Mrs. Kranti T. Hiwrale, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. PSI Meena Bhujbal attached to MRA Marg Police Station, present. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE : 24 th MARCH, 2025 P.C. :
1.
Heard the petitioner who present in-person.
2.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following substantive and interim reliefs;
"(a) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to 1/3
the Respondents No. 2 to 4 ordering and directing them, to lodge another 'F.I.R.' against the abovenamed offenders
(1) Mrs. Advocate Uma Sanjay Sharma (2) Mr. Sanjay Sharma (3) Mr. Dharam Sharma, Advocate and their other accomplices, for committing the said serious criminal offences;
(b) Pending the hearing and final dispose of the above writ petition, direct the Registrar of Small Causes Court, Mumbai to lodge FIR against Advocate Dharam Sharma, Advocate Uma Sanjay Sharma, Mr. Sanjay Sharma and their family members for misleading the Hon'ble Court to grab the premises from gullible tenants of the subject building viz. Lucky House situated at 272, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 for their personal interest;
(c) Direct the Bar Council of Maharashtra and GOA to take appropriate action on these practicing advocates and direct the bar council to pass the necessary orders; (d) Pending the hearing and final dispose of the above Writ Petition, direct the M.R.A. Marg Police Station to lodge a FIR and arrest the above Advocates and their family members for playing fraud with Hon'ble Small Causes Court, Mumbai before the elope."
3.
The petitioner, who appears in person is unable to show us any complaint made to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 seeking registration 2/3
of an FIR and hence, prayer clause (a) cannot be considered. 4.
As far as prayer clauses (b) to (d) are concerned, all are interim reliefs. None of them can be granted in this aforesaid petition. It is open for the petitioner to take appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
5.
Considering the aforesaid, nothing survives for further consideration in the aforesaid petition.
6.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
3/3