ALP-357-2017 (CR).doc v. Prakash Digambar Lanjekar & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/2 Applicant and learned APP for the state, a case is made out. Hence, 28-ALP-357-2017 (CR).doc leave to file appeal is granted.
Judgment
Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode, for the Applicant in both applications. Mr. P. P. Deokar, APP, for the Respondent – State. ----- ----- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 28th FEBRUARY, 2025. P.C. :
Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP. Though Respondent No.1 is served, none present for Respondent No.1.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/2 Applicant and learned APP for the state, a case is made out. Hence, 28-ALP-357-2017 (CR).doc leave to file appeal is granted.
Appeals are admitted. The Registry is directed to initiate action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum 2/2
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 390.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 28 Feb 2025. The bench was SHIVKUMAR DIGE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.