The State of Maharashtra, Shrirampur Taluka Police Station vs Mayur alias Harish Pandurang Vitkare Advocate - Bhakare B. B. — 75/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 118(1)(2),115(2),352,351(2),351(3),189(2),191(2),191(3),190,35(3). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHAH060003322025

e-Filing Number

28-01-2025

Filing Number

332/2025

Filing Date

24-Feb-2025

Registration No

75/2025

Registration Date

24-Feb-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Shrirampur

Judge

5-3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

407

Police Station

Shrirampur Taluka Police Station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 118(1)(2),115(2),352,351(2),351(3),189(2),191(2),191(3),190,35(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra, Shrirampur Taluka Police Station

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Mayur alias Harish Pandurang Vitkare Advocate - Bhakare B. B.

  2. 2.Sandip Dagdu Vitkare

    Adv. NIL

  3. 3.Sanket Pandurang Vitkare

    Adv. NIL

  4. 4.Pandurang Shankar Vitkare

    Adv. NIL

  5. 5.Sopan Shankar Vitkare

    Adv. NIL

  6. 6.Nirmala Sopan Vitkare

    Adv. NIL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary of Case 75/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted all six accused persons (Mayur alias Harish Pandurang Vitkare, Sandip Dagdu Vitkare, Sanket Pandurang Vitkare, Pandurang Shankar Vitkare, Sopan Shankar Vitkare (deceased), and Nirmala Sopan Vitkare) of charges under IPC sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 118(2), 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), and 190 on April 2, 2026. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the criminal charges against the accused. Despite the complainant's allegations that the accused violently assaulted him and witnesses with sticks and bricks on July 19, 2024, the complainant and injured witnesses contradicted the case narrative during examination, providing inconsistent testimonies and showing lack of cooperation with the prosecution's theory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  6. 14-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  7. 16-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  8. 15-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  9. 01-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  10. 19-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  11. 11-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  12. 26-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  13. 13-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  14. 09-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  15. 25-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  16. 10-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  17. 08-May-2025

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  18. 09-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  19. 04-Mar-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    3rd Jt.CJJD and JMFC

  20. 25-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 24-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 75/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 75/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted all six accused persons (Mayur alias Harish Pandurang Vitkare, Sandip Dagdu Vitkare, Sanket Pandurang Vitkare, Pandurang Shankar Vitkare, Sopan Shankar Vitkare (deceased), and Nirmala Sopan Vitkare) of charges under IPC sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 118(2), 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), and 190 on April 2, 2026. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the criminal charges against the accused. Despite the complainant's allegations that the accused violently assaulted him and witnesses with sticks and bricks on July 19, 2024, the complainant and injured witnesses contradicted the case narrative during examination, providing inconsistent testimonies and showing lack of cooperation with the prosecution's theory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case