State of Maharastra vs Akshay Arjun Sanap — 162/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185,177. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 09th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHAH200005222025
Filing Number
389/2025
Filing Date
19-Mar-2025
Registration No
162/2025
Registration Date
19-Mar-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pathardi
Judge
3-Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Pathardi
Decision Date
09-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC
Last updated 14-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
765
Police Station
PATHARDI POLICE STN.PATHARDI
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharastra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Akshay Arjun Sanap
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Summary: The Pathardi J.M.F.C. court discharged accused Akshay Sanap from charges under Sections 185 and 177 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and stopped the proceedings under Section 281 of BNSS. The court found this appropriate as the accused had been absent for an extended period and the prosecution failed to secure his presence through summons or warrants, making the case unfit for continued adjudication under the High Court's special disposal drive directive. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Mar-2026
Disposed
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Pathardi
-
28-Jan-2026
Awaiting Summons
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Pathardi
-
30-Oct-2025
Awaiting Summons
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Pathardi
-
02-Aug-2025
Awaiting Summons
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Pathardi
-
13-May-2025
Awaiting Summons
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Pathardi
-
10-May-2025
First Order
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Pathardi
-
22-Mar-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Mar-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 162/2025
Summary: The Pathardi J.M.F.C. court discharged accused Akshay Sanap from charges under Sections 185 and 177 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and stopped the proceedings under Section 281 of BNSS. The court found this appropriate as the accused had been absent for an extended period and the prosecution failed to secure his presence through summons or warrants, making the case unfit for continued adjudication under the High Court's special disposal drive directive. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts