State of Maharashtra vs Parshuram @ Abhi Hanumant Kamble — 134/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 325,504,506,141,143,147,148. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHRG080012682024
Next Hearing
29th June 2026
Filing Number
1098/2024
Filing Date
30-07-2024
Registration No
134/2024
Registration Date
30-07-2024
Court
Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Khalpuar
Judge
1-1 Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Khalpuar
FIR Details
FIR Number
175
Police Station
Khopoli Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Respondent(s)
Parshuram @ Abhi Hanumant Kamble
Ganesh Raju Jadhav
Tejas @ Nanya Keru Jadhav
Hearing History
Judge: 1-1 Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Khalpuar
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 17-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 07-01-2026 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
This document contains witness testimony in a criminal case (Case 134/2024) involving the State of Maharashtra as petitioner against three respondents. The witness, Irfan Razzak Parmar (a 45-year-old contractor), testified about police recovery of a hockey stick at the crime scene near Shishu Mandir School in Khopoli on June 9, 2024. During cross-examination, the defense counsel challenged the witness's credibility regarding the recovered weapon and other evidentiary details. The court (dated April 9, 2026) accepted the post-hearing statement, with no further cross-examination ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document contains witness testimony in a criminal case (Case 134/2024) involving the State of Maharashtra as petitioner against three respondents. The witness, Irfan Razzak Parmar (a 45-year-old contractor), testified about police recovery of a hockey stick at the crime scene near Shishu Mandir School in Khopoli on June 9, 2024. During cross-examination, the defense counsel challenged the witness's credibility regarding the recovered weapon and other evidentiary details. The court (dated April 9, 2026) accepted the post-hearing statement, with no further cross-examination ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts