Satish Ajabrao Wankhede and Others vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ranapratap Nagar Ps Nagpur and Others.

Priyanka w/o Chetan Borkute, Aged about 45 yrs, Occ. Business, At Present r/o Plot No. 3, Ground Floor, Besides “Solanke Hospital Hindustan Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur 440 015

¶13

Chetan s/o Purushottam Borkute, Aged about 50 yrs, Occ Business At Present r/o Plot No. 3, Ground Floor, Besides “Solanke

¶14

Belkhede, PS

¶15

2 21apl1135.2025..doc

¶16

Hospital Hindustan Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur 440 015 .....NON-APPLICANTS

¶17

Mr. S.R. Kadam, Advocate for applicants. Mr. H.D. Marathe, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. S.B. Kalbande, Advocate for non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3.

¶18

CORAM:- RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.

¶19

Date : 10.10.2025

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

¶22

Original accused has invoked inherent jurisdiction of the Court thereby praying for setting aside Regular Criminal Case No. 5086/2021, pending Before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur.

¶23

In short, it is the case of the accused persons that Criminal Complaint No. 5086/2021, was filed against them at the behest of nonapplicant Nos.2 and 3. In the said complaint, it is categorically stated that they were in fact, assaulted by means of iron rod and were abused. According to non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, entire incidence was recorded in CCTV footage and a specific statement was made in paragraph 6 of the complaint (page 26).

¶24

Belkhede, PS

¶25

3 21apl1135.2025..doc

¶26

Learned Magistrate, after considering averments in the complaint, ordered enquiry to be conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”) at the hands of concerned Police Station. In pursuance with the order dated 24.2.2023 directing enquiry under Section 202, the officer attached to Ranpratap Nagar Police Station, Nagpur filed report dated 2.10.2023 in which it was stated that the non-applicant though requested but did not produce CCTV footage during course of inquiry. Learned Magistrate, thereafter on 19.6.2025, issued process against the present applicants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶27

It is the contention of both the parties that CCTV footage is the best evidence which will reveal the truth. The best piece of evidence should have been considered by the police authorities while carrying out enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. According to original complainant, police had never asked for CCTV footage and therefore, it was not produced. Be that as it may, the best material in the form of electronic evidence is available for deciding question whether to set criminal law in motion or not? The learned counsel for original complainant is ready to produce CCTV footage if asked by the police by issuing necessary summons. According to him, he has preserved CCTV footage in pen drive. Learned APP fairly states that if CCTV footage is available in pen drive that will be a material which can be produced before the

¶28

Belkhede, PS

¶29

4 21apl1135.2025..doc

¶30

Magistrate, who in turn, can take appropriate decision.

¶31

In that view of the matter, following order is passed:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) Order issuing process dated 16.6.2025, passed in RCC No. 5086/2021, by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur is set aside. ii) The original complainants are directed to produce pen drive containing CCTV footage within 15 days from today.

¶34

iii) Learned APP shall ensure that summons is issued to produce pen drive within seven days from today. If pen drive containing CCTV footage is produced, non-applicant No.1 would test its guanineness and submit appropriate report to the Court of learned Magistrate, within two months, thereafter.

¶35

v) Learned Magistrate can take appropriate call and decide fate of RCC No. 5086/2024, thereafter.

¶36

The application is allowed in the aforestated terms.

¶37

Belkhede, PS

Satish Ajabrao Wankhede and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Ranapratap Nagar Ps Nagpur and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Ajabrao Wankhede and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Ranapratap Nagar Ps Nagpur and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kakaji Mahadu More and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pratik Kirtichand Bora and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Arun Bhagwan Gavli vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pranav Sahebrao Borhade and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Subhash S/O Jalbaji Pandit and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Laxman Bhaskar Havane and Other vs the State of Maharashtra and Another