Dinesh Alias Tukaram Shymarao Ghodmare vs State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station, Sindi Advocate - Takwale G. V. — 1/2020

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 20th May 2026.

Cri.Appeal - Criminal Appeal

CNR: MHWR010000492020

Case disposed

Filing Number

32/2020

Filing Date

08-01-2020

Registration No

1/2020

Registration Date

09-01-2020

Court

District and Session Court , Wardha

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE WARDHA

Decision Date

20th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Section 374

Petitioner(s)

Dinesh Alias Tukaram Shymarao Ghodmare

Adv. Chandak H. K.

Respondent(s)

State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station, Sindi Advocate - Takwale G. V.

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE WARDHA

20-05-2026

Disposed

29-04-2026

Arguments

04-04-2026

Arguments

11-03-2026

Arguments

26-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

20-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary: The court partly allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant of wrongful restraint (Section 341) and criminal intimidation (Section 506(II)) charges due to insufficient evidence, but upheld his conviction for obscene language in public (Section 294). The court found the prosecution failed to prove actual obstruction preventing movement and lacked evidence of intent to cause alarm through threats, but confirmed obscene abuses against the victim on a public road caused annoyance. The sentence for Section 294 was modified from three months rigorous imprisonment and ₹1,000 fine to simple imprisonment till court rising and ₹2,500 fine. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court partly allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant of wrongful restraint (Section 341) and criminal intimidation (Section 506(II)) charges due to insufficient evidence, but upheld his conviction for obscene language in public (Section 294). The court found the prosecution failed to prove actual obstruction preventing movement and lacked evidence of intent to cause alarm through threats, but confirmed obscene abuses against the victim on a public road caused annoyance. The sentence for Section 294 was modified from three months rigorous imprisonment and ₹1,000 fine to simple imprisonment till court rising and ₹2,500 fine. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Court , Wardha All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case