Bombay High Court

SHIVAJI SHESHRAO KADAMversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: Withdrawn

Holding

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Shivaji Sheshrao Kadam appealed against the State of Maharashtra alleging that he was unaware of a crime registered against him because his name was omitted from the FIR. The prosecution objected, presenting documentary evidence that Kadam had knowledge of the alleged offence. The appellant's counsel argued that the omission in the FIR meant he could not have known about the pending case until the charge-sheet was filed. The court, noting the prosecution's evidence and the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal, expressed disinclination to grant any relief. Consequently, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal, and the court dismissed the criminal appeal as withdrawn.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant can be granted relief on the ground of lack of knowledge of the FIR and charge-sheet
Whether the appellant may withdraw the appeal at the stage of proceedings

Subjects

criminal procedure
withdrawal of appeal
FIR
charge sheet
knowledge of antecedents

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41221




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                21 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 680 OF 2026

                                    SHIVAJI SHESHRAO KADAM
                                              VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                 ...
           Mr. Prakash Gaikwad, Advocate for Appellant
           Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent/State
           Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

                                                     CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                     DATED    : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    Objection was raised on behalf of the prosecution with regard to the

           antecedents of the present appellant. In response thereto, learned Advocate

           for the appellant submits that, in Crime No. 92/2026 registered with

           Nanalpeth Police Station, District Parbhani, the name of the present appellant

           was not mentioned in the First Information Report and, therefore, the

           appellant had no knowledge about the pendency of the said crime against him

           till filing of the charge-sheet.

           2.    In response thereto, learned APP drew the attention of the Court to the

           documentary evidence indicating that the appellant had knowledge of the

           said crime.

           3.    In view of the above, when this Court expressed its disinclination to



           21 APEAL 680.2026.odt                                                   1 of 2
grant any relief to the appellant, learned Advocate for the appellant, on

instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the appeal.

4.    In view of the above, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.




                                                    ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




21 APEAL 680.2026.odt                                                    2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…