Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

june 2026

Bombay High Court · 2026-06-10

NANDAKUMAR SUKUMAR PANICKER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation / case number
WP/1297/2021
Court
Bombay High Court
Petitioner
NANDAKUMAR SUKUMAR PANICKER
Respondent
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

SKN/SAGAR WP-1297.21.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1297 OF 2021 Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker Age: 53 Years, Occupation: Service, Having permanent residential address at 66/3214, Midhila Rajaji Road, Ernakulam- 682035. … Petitioner. V/S. 1. State of Maharashtra Through the office of he Public Prosecutor (through Samata Nagar Police Station). 2. Saru Vijay Pujari, Residing at Room No.A/234, Vanjari Chawl, Hanuman Nagar, Narsipada, near Fish Market, Akurli Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai- 400 101. … Respondents. _______________________________ Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Nikhil Ghate, Mr. Pushpvijay Kanoji i/b. Haresh Jagtiani and Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Y. M.Nakhwa, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Dilip Shukla i/b. Priya Pandey for Respondent No.2. _______________________________ CORAM : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE , J. RESERVED ON : 23rd FEBRUARY 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 10th JUNE 2026. 1/33 SKN/SAGAR WP-1297.21.doc JUDGMENT :- 1) The present Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash FIR No.139/2019 dated 2nd April 2019 registered with the Samata Nagar Police Station, Kandivali, Mumbai under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and the resultant proceedings being C.C.No.175/PW/2020 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (17th Court), Borivali, Mumbai. 2) Perusal of the FIR would indicate that, Respondent No.2/ original Complainant used to work with a bureau by name Book My Bai Bureau, Malad, Mumbai which provided employment opportunities for household work. Six months prior to filing of the present FIR, Respondent No.2 had left her aforesaid job and therefore was in need of employment. That, on 27th F

NANDAKUMAR SUKUMAR PANICKER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. · Niyam