State of Karnataka vs Abu Talib @ Irani, Age.25 yrs, r/o Kirloskarwadi Near Sangali, Sangali, Maharastra — 81/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 392. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 13th March 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 13-Mar-2026 this date has passed

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAHV020004322021

Filing Number

81/2021

Filing Date

17-Aug-2021

Registration No

81/2021

Registration Date

17-Aug-2021

Court

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HAVERI

Judge

352-Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

Last updated 13-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 392

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Karnataka

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Abu Talib @ Irani, Age.25 yrs, r/o Kirloskarwadi Near Sangali, Sangali, Maharastra

  2. 2.Sultan , Age.25 yrs, Sangli, Maharastra

Case History

  1. 13-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  3. 11-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  4. 09-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  5. 04-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  6. 28-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  7. 26-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  8. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  9. 21-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  10. 29-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  11. 10-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  12. 20-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  13. 01-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  14. 18-Jul-2025

    DepositionView PDF

    The court found the second accused's defense arguments unpersuasive and rejected his contentions regarding identification, the FIR, and witness credibility. The court upheld the investigation findings and determined there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the case against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  15. 18-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  16. 09-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  17. 26-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  18. 18-Jun-2025

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  19. 19-Mar-2025

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  20. 12-Feb-2025

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  21. 20-Jan-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  22. 20-Jan-2025

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  23. 21-Nov-2024

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  24. 04-Nov-2024

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  25. 03-Oct-2024

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  26. 26-Jun-2024

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  27. 27-Mar-2024

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  28. 27-Dec-2023

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  29. 18-Oct-2023

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  30. 12-Jul-2023

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  31. 12-Jun-2023

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  32. 13-Mar-2023

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  33. 09-Jan-2023

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  34. 10-Oct-2022

    Notice

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  35. 13-Jul-2022

    Notice

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  36. 17-May-2022

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  37. 15-Mar-2022

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  38. 03-Dec-2021

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  39. 22-Sep-2021

    Summons

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge

  40. 17-Aug-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  41. 17-Aug-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 81/2021

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the second accused's defense arguments unpersuasive and rejected his contentions regarding identification, the FIR, and witness credibility. The court upheld the investigation findings and determined there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the case against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case