SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Bom) 904

A.P.BHANGALE
Anil Manohar Walke – Appellant
Versus
Pramod Uttamrao Tidke – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant:P.S. Patil, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R.J. Mirza, Advocate.

Judgment :

1. Heard Mr. P.S.Patil, Adv. for the Applicant and Mr. R.J.Mirza, Adv. for the Respondent.

2. By way of instant application, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order in Criminal Revision No.109 of 2009, dt.19.6.2010 whereby the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati was pleased to quash and set aside the order regarding framing of charge against the accused u/s. 506 of the Indian Penal Code in Regular Criminal Case No.218 of 2006.

3. It appears that Criminal Complaint Case No.218 of 2006 was filed by the present applicant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati against Nandkishor Vishwanath Raut (reportedly dead) and Pramod Uttamrao Tidke (sole respondent) alleging that, on 10.3.2006, the applicant was abused as “Nalayaka” by Nandkishor Raut (deceased) and the present respondent Pramod Tidke threatened the applicant not to depose and submit documents as evidence before the Enquiry Officer. It may be noted that, in the enquiry in respect of complaint made by certain students to the Director of vocational Education and Training, Mumbai, the present applicant was summoned to give his statement and documentary e


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top