Rinku@Rahul Pradeepkumar Singhaniya vs State of Maharashtra Through D.G.P.-A.G.P. Advocate - Chandwani M. S. — 18/2022
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 15th April 2026.
Cri.Appeal - Criminal Appeal
CNR: MHGO010007392022
Filing Number
388/2022
Filing Date
23-05-2022
Registration No
18/2022
Registration Date
24-05-2022
Court
District and Session Court , Gondia
Judge
41-District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rinku@Rahul Pradeepkumar Singhaniya
Adv. Bhadupotey H.B.
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Through D.G.P.-A.G.P. Advocate - Chandwani M. S.
Hearing History
Judge: 41-District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Citation
Citation
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 08-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 02-04-2026 | Citation |
| 30-03-2026 | Citation |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Gondia set aside the conviction of appellant Rinku @ Rahul Pradeepkumar Singhaniya due to serious defects in the charge framing by the trial court. The court found that the charge contained material errors including: incorrect place of incident, wrongly charged criminal intimidation not supported by FIR allegations, and convicted the accused for incidents without proper charges being framed. The court held that these irregularities caused failure of justice and vitiated the conviction, remanding the case for retrial with properly rectified charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Gondia set aside the conviction of appellant Rinku @ Rahul Pradeepkumar Singhaniya due to serious defects in the charge framing by the trial court. The court found that the charge contained material errors including: incorrect place of incident, wrongly charged criminal intimidation not supported by FIR allegations, and convicted the accused for incidents without proper charges being framed. The court held that these irregularities caused failure of justice and vitiated the conviction, remanding the case for retrial with properly rectified charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts