DINESH JAGDISH KAITHWAS THAMKE CHETAN DEVRAOJI, SANDEEP S. KASHYAP,KETAN S. GHATATE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR POLICE STATION WARDHA — APL/1138/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 24th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 26-Aug-2025

CNR: HCBM040209622025

e-Filing Number

05-07-2025

Filing Number

APL/5695/2025

Filing Date

05-Jul-2025

Registration No

APL/1138/2025

Registration Date

14-Aug-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

Coram

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

Bench Type

Division

Category

CRIMINAL ( 9 )

Sub-Category

QUASHING OF FIR C.R., CHARGE SHEET OR PROSECUTION ( 26 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DINESH JAGDISH KAITHWAS THAMKE CHETAN DEVRAOJI, SANDEEP S. KASHYAP,KETAN S. GHATATE

  2. 2.JAGDISH SURAJPAL KAITWAS

    Adv. THAMKE CHETAN DEVRAOJI

  3. 3.SUNITA JAGDISH KAITHWAS

    Adv. THAMKE CHETAN DEVRAOJI

  4. 4.GANESH JAGDISH KAITHWAS

    Adv. THAMKE CHETAN DEVRAOJI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR POLICE STATION WARDHA

  2. 2.NITU DINESH KAITHWAS

    Adv. M.P. DHRUV,BHAVIN M. DHRUV POOJA B. DHRUV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. JoshiView PDF

    The High Court rejected the applicants' plea to quash dowry and cruelty charges (IPC §498-A and Dowry Prohibition Act §3-4). Finding sufficient material evidence—including bank statements showing Rs. 6,50,000 received from the complainant's father and FIR allegations of continuous dowry demands and in-law harassment—the court ordered trial to proceed, ruling vague allegations claim was insufficient to dismiss the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Applications For Admission After Notice (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. JoshiView PDF

  5. 20-Apr-2026

    Applications For Admission After Notice (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

  6. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. JoshiView PDF

  7. 17-Apr-2026

    Applications For Admission After Notice (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke

  8. 11-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi PhalkeView PDF

  9. 11-Feb-2026

    Applications For Admission - After Notice(criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao Deshpande

  10. 09-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke,hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao DeshpandeView PDF

  11. 09-Dec-2025

    Applications For Admission - After Notice(criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao Deshpande

  12. 25-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke,hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao DeshpandeView PDF

  13. 25-Sep-2025

    Applications For Admission - After Notice(criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao Deshpande

  14. 08-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke,hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao DeshpandeView PDF

  15. 08-Sep-2025

    Application For Admission - Fresh - (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil L. Pansare , Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Nerlikar

  16. 26-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  17. 18-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil L. Pansare,hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. NerlikarView PDF

  18. 05-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. APL/1138/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court rejected the applicants' plea to quash dowry and cruelty charges (IPC §498-A and Dowry Prohibition Act §3-4). Finding sufficient material evidence—including bank statements showing Rs. 6,50,000 received from the complainant's father and FIR allegations of continuous dowry demands and in-law harassment—the court ordered trial to proceed, ruling vague allegations claim was insufficient to dismiss the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case