Disposed¶15

Nitesh Vasantrao Madikuntawar and Others v. State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Ramnagar and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Aug 2025APL/592/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR counter blast; notice dated 19.02.2024 by applicants; complaint dated 18.01.2024 by non-applicant No.2; Police Station Lakadganj; Legal Aid Clinic District Legal Services Authority; applicants summoned; failure to disclose vital facts; expectation to come clean; time granted to take instructions; matter listed after two weeks; Nitesh Vasantrao Madikuntawar; State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Pansare and Nerlikar JJ.; interim order, adjourned.

What did the court decide?

Time granted to the applicants' counsel to take instructions; matter directed to be listed after two weeks. Interim adjournment; no final relief decided. ¶15

Nitesh Vasantrao Madikuntawar and Others vs State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Ramnagar and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Time granted to the applicants' counsel to take instructions; matter directed to be listed after two weeks. Interim adjournment; no final relief decided.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR against the applicants is a counter blast to (i.e. an outcome of) the notice dated 19.02.2024 issued by the applicants, rather than connected to the earlier complaint of 18.01.2024.

¶8

Court's answer

The applicants' argument that the FIR is a counter blast to their notice dated 19.02.2024 is incorrect, because the notice itself referred to the complaint made by non-applicant No.2 on 18.01.2024 with Police Station, Lakadganj.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

What transpired at the Police Station was within the applicants' own knowledge; they should have disclosed it, first in the notice given to non-applicant No.2, and second before the Court.

¶10

Key takeaways

The Court expects the applicants to come clean before it, and equally expects counsel for non-applicant No.2 to disclose the crucial facts, including her complaint of 18.01.2024, which non-applicant No.2 too had not disclosed.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench — Criminal Application (APL) No.592/2025 (Pansare and Nerlikar, JJ., 18-08-2025), interim order. The Court rejected the applicants' contention that the First Information Report was a counter blast to their notice dated 19.02.2024, pointing out that the notice itself referred to the complaint lodged by non-applicant No.2 on 18.01.2024 with Police Station, Lakadganj, in connection with which the applicants had been summoned. It held that what transpired at the police station was within the applicants' knowledge and ought to have been disclosed both in the notice and before the Court; it also observed that non-applicant No.2 had likewise not disclosed her complaint of 18.01.2024. Time was granted to the applicants' counsel to take instructions; the Court expected both sides to come clean and disclose the crucial facts, and listed the matter after two weeks. No final relief was granted at this stage.

¶1

(1) 63APL592.25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.592/2025

¶4

Nitesh Vasantrao Madikuntawar and Ors. .Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

Mr. O. R. Deshpande, Advocate for applicants. Ms S. Haider, A.P.P. for non applicant No.1-State. Mrs. S. P. Giratkar, Advocate for non applicant No.2.

¶7

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND M. M. NERLIKAR, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2025

¶8

After having heard for some time, argument of the applicants’ counsel that the First Information Report is a counter blast to notice dated 19.02.2024 issued by the applicants, appears to us to be an incorrect submission. Reason being, in the notice itself, the applicants have referred to the complaint made by non applicant No.2 on 18.01.2024 with Police Station, Lakadganj. The applicant No.1 was required to attend Legal Aid Clinic in District Legal Services Authority attached to Police Station, Lakadganj, on 18.01.2024. The applicants have, however, not disclosed in the notice as to what transpired in the police station. What has been stated in the notice is that copy of complaint allegedly made by non applicant No.2 was not given to the applicants.

¶9

Maybe, that copy of complaint was not given to the applicants, the fact, however, remains that the applicants were summoned in context with the complaint made by non applicant No.2.

¶10

In the circumstances, what transpired in the Police Station was something which was within the knowledge of the applicants and, therefore, they should have disclosed the same, firstly in the notice given to non applicant No.2 and secondly before this

¶11

(2) 63APL592.25

¶12

Court. Instead, the applicants have come up with a case that the FIR is an outcome of the notice dated 19.02.2024.

¶13

At this stage, counsel for applicants seeks time to take instructions. Time granted.

¶14

We would expect the applicants to come clean before the Court. At the same time, we would also expect the counsel for non applicant No.2 to disclose the crucial facts, one of which is the complaint made by her on 18.01.2024. Unfortunately, non applicant No.2 has also not disclosed this vital fact.

¶15

With an expectation of good assistance, list the matter after two weeks.

¶16

(M. M. Nerlikar, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)

¶17

Kahale

Nitesh Vasantrao Madikuntawar and Others v. State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Ramnagar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitesh Vasantrao Madikuntawar and Others v. State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Ramnagar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ambadas Radhakisan Sanap Vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Lonar, Dist. Buldhana

Ajay Sanjay Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Khandala Station, Yavatmal

Lakshman Sheshrao Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Mehekar, Tah. Mehekar, Dist. Buldhana

Bebi Karnuji Meshram vs State of Mahrashtra Thr Its P.I. Gadge Nagar and Anr.

Sanjay S/O Namdeo Waghamare vs State of Maha Thr Police Station Officer, Mouda

Sejal D/O Ajay Sadhwani vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Hudkeshwar Nagpur and Others.