SYED MUSHTAQ AHMED vs NAFEEZ PASHA S/O SIKANDAR PASHA — 2/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 223. Status: For Objection. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.

For Objection Next hearing 16-Jun-2026 this date has passed

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KADG210000232025

Filing Number

2/2025

Filing Date

09-Jan-2025

Registration No

2/2025

Registration Date

09-Jan-2025

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI

Judge

972-Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 223

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SYED MUSHTAQ AHMED

    Adv. Gurubasappa s S G

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NAFEEZ PASHA S/O SIKANDAR PASHA

Case History

  1. 16-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 12-May-2026

    For Objection

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    For Objection

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    For Objection

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: 2/2025 (Syed Mushtaq Ahmed v. Nafeez Pasha) The accused's application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking to compel the complainant to produce IT returns was rejected. The court found the accused failed to establish sufficient grounds, noting the complainant had already stated no income tax was filed. The court held that IT returns are private documents obtainable through proper channels, not court direction, and that each party must prove their case through their own evidence. The case proceeds to defence evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  8. 04-Feb-2026

    Orders Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  9. 19-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  10. 31-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  11. 23-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  12. 08-Dec-2025

    For Objection

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  13. 21-Nov-2025

    For Objection

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  14. 05-Nov-2025

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  15. 23-Oct-2025

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  16. 29-Sep-2025

    Accussed Statement u/s 313 CrPC

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  17. 17-Sep-2025

    Accussed Statement u/s 313 CrPC

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  18. 03-Sep-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  19. 03-Sep-2025

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  20. 29-Aug-2025

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  21. 12-Aug-2025

    A.D.R. Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  22. 23-Jul-2025

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  23. 15-Jul-2025

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  24. 03-Jul-2025

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  25. 21-Jun-2025

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  26. 05-Jun-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  27. 05-Jun-2025

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  28. 19-Apr-2025

    Evidence Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  29. 15-Mar-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  30. 11-Feb-2025

    Notice

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  31. 09-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 09-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 2/2025 (Syed Mushtaq Ahmed v. Nafeez Pasha) The accused's application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking to compel the complainant to produce IT returns was rejected. The court found the accused failed to establish sufficient grounds, noting the complainant had already stated no income tax was filed. The court held that IT returns are private documents obtainable through proper channels, not court direction, and that each party must prove their case through their own evidence. The case proceeds to defence evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case