SREEJIT S/O SHIVKUMAR PANIKAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE STATION WARDHA, DIST WARDHA AND ANR. — WP/295/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226&227. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM040130542026
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
e-Filing Number
09-04-2026
Filing Number
WP/4176/2026
Filing Date
15-04-2026
Registration No
WP/295/2026
Registration Date
17-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. W. CHANDWANI
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. W. CHANDWANI
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL ( 9 )
Sub-Category
OTHERS ( 99 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SREEJIT S/O SHIVKUMAR PANIKAR
Adv. AMOL SHRIPAD DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR APPLICANT NO. 1 AND
SWPANIL DEEPAK TOPRE
Adv. AMOL SHRIPAD DESHPANDE
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE STATION WARDHA, DIST WARDHA AND ANR.
RAJSHREE PRASHANT CHAPHALE
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. W. CHANDWANI
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 |
Orders
Case Summary: In WP 295/2026, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court heard arguments from petitioners Sreejit and Swpanil contending that an FIR was lodged in violation of Section 31 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, which requires written consent from an authorized officer before cognizance. The Court issued notice to respondents (State of Maharashtra and Rajshree Prashant Chaphale) returnable on 30.06.2026, with the APP waiving service and seeking time to file a reply. The petition was adjourned for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: In WP 295/2026, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court heard arguments from petitioners Sreejit and Swpanil contending that an FIR was lodged in violation of Section 31 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, which requires written consent from an authorized officer before cognizance. The Court issued notice to respondents (State of Maharashtra and Rajshree Prashant Chaphale) returnable on 30.06.2026, with the APP waiving service and seeking time to file a reply. The petition was adjourned for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts