The State of Maharashtra vs Nitin Pandharinath Mhase Advocate - Shete R. M. — 325/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 435,427,504,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHAH180015252021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1174/2021
Filing Date
14-06-2021
Registration No
325/2021
Registration Date
14-06-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Rahuri
Judge
2-2nd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And JMFC
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
178
Police Station
RAHURI POLICE STATION
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Nitin Pandharinath Mhase Advocate - Shete R. M.
Vishal Nitin Mhase
Adv. NIL
Hearing History
Judge: 2-2nd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And JMFC
Disposed
Arguments
Evidence
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 18-11-2025 | Hearing | |
| 03-09-2025 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court acquitted two farmers, Nitin Pandharinath Mhse and Vishal Nitin Mhse, of all charges under IPC sections 435, 427, 504, 506, and 34. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants intentionally burned sugarcane stubble on common land that caused damage to the complainant's wheat crop, nor could it prove criminal intimidation or defamation allegations. The court noted the complainant and sole witness contradicted their own statements and reached a settlement (Section 33), undermining the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary The court acquitted two farmers, Nitin Pandharinath Mhse and Vishal Nitin Mhse, of all charges under IPC sections 435, 427, 504, 506, and 34. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants intentionally burned sugarcane stubble on common land that caused damage to the complainant's wheat crop, nor could it prove criminal intimidation or defamation allegations. The court noted the complainant and sole witness contradicted their own statements and reached a settlement (Section 33), undermining the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts