The State of Maharashtra vs Shrikrishna Babanrao Adasure Advocate - NIL — 99/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 85/1. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHAH150001632025

Filing Number

163/2025

Filing Date

24-Jan-2025

Registration No

99/2025

Registration Date

27-Jan-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Newasa

Judge

2-2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jd JMFC Newasa

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

270

Police Station

Shani Shingnapur Police Station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 85/1
Maharashtra Police Act Section 110/117

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shrikrishna Babanrao Adasure Advocate - NIL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court stopped proceedings against Shrikrushna Babanrao Adsure under Section 258 of the CrPC and discharged the accused, as repeated summons failed to secure his presence in a case filed under Section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Case papers were retained for potential reopening under Section 300(5) of the CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jd JMFC Newasa

  4. 09-Feb-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jd JMFC Newasa

  5. 27-Oct-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jd JMFC Newasa

  6. 07-Aug-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jd JMFC Newasa

  7. 13-May-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jd JMFC Newasa

  8. 05-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 24-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 99/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court stopped proceedings against Shrikrushna Babanrao Adsure under Section 258 of the CrPC and discharged the accused, as repeated summons failed to secure his presence in a case filed under Section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Case papers were retained for potential reopening under Section 300(5) of the CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case