State of Maharashtra vs Devashish Dilip Haldar — 741/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 175,179,419,420. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 30th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHLA120036932022
Filing Number
3693/2022
Filing Date
01-11-2022
Registration No
741/2022
Registration Date
01-11-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Nilanga
Judge
1-Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Nilanga
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
195
Police Station
Aurad Shahajani
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Devashish Dilip Haldar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Nilanga
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 22-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 16-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 741/2022 (State of Maharashtra v. Devashish Dilip Haldar) The court acquitted Dr. Devashish Dilip Haldar of charges under IPC Sections 420, 419, 175, 179, Medical Council Act 1956 Section 15(2), and Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act 1961 Section 33(a) for practicing medicine without valid qualifications. The prosecution failed to prove its case through sufficient evidence—the scene inspection and seizure panchnamas were not properly corroborated by witnesses, and the complainant's testimony was not recorded. The court found the prosecution did not establish that the accused practiced medicine fraudulently or that he lacked proper medical credentials, hence ordering his acquittal and release on personal bond of ₹15,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 741/2022 (State of Maharashtra v. Devashish Dilip Haldar) The court acquitted Dr. Devashish Dilip Haldar of charges under IPC Sections 420, 419, 175, 179, Medical Council Act 1956 Section 15(2), and Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act 1961 Section 33(a) for practicing medicine without valid qualifications. The prosecution failed to prove its case through sufficient evidence—the scene inspection and seizure panchnamas were not properly corroborated by witnesses, and the complainant's testimony was not recorded. The court found the prosecution did not establish that the accused practiced medicine fraudulently or that he lacked proper medical credentials, hence ordering his acquittal and release on personal bond of ₹15,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts