The State of Maharashtra vs Santosh Purushottam Joshi Advocate - Ingle C.S. — 502/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,420,465,468. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th May 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHAU030019002021
Filing Number
1900/2021
Filing Date
30-Jan-2021
Registration No
502/2021
Registration Date
01-Feb-2021
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Aurangabad
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
Decision Date
11-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 29-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
8
Police Station
VEDANTNAGAR
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.The State of Maharashtra
Respondent(s)
-
1.Santosh Purushottam Joshi Advocate - Ingle C.S.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-May-2026
Copy of Judgment
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Purushottam Joshi Case No. 502/2021 | Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad | Judgment dated 11.05.2026 The court acquitted advocate Santosh Purushottam Joshi of charges under IPC sections 420 (fraud), 465 (forgery), and 468 (forgery for cheating) relating to an alleged property transaction fraud. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused deceived the complainant regarding the sale of a flat; credible evidence of fraudulent intent or deliberate misrepresentation was absent, and witness testimony proved unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-May-2026
Disposed
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
23-Apr-2026
Evidence
-
23-Apr-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
12-Mar-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
05-Feb-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
24-Dec-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
12-Nov-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
23-Sep-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
14-Aug-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
30-Jun-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
08-May-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
11-Apr-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
13-Feb-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
10-Jan-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
04-Dec-2024
Evidence
-
04-Dec-2024
Evidence Part Heard
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
13-Nov-2024
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
05-Nov-2024
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
13-Sep-2024
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
26-Aug-2024
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
22-Aug-2024
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
22-May-2024
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
22-Nov-2023
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
20-Jul-2023
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
21-Apr-2023
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
20-Dec-2022
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
22-Sep-2022
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
14-Jun-2022
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
11-Mar-2022
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
03-Dec-2021
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
04-Sep-2021
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
09-Jun-2021
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad.
-
12-Apr-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Jan-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 502/2021
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Purushottam Joshi Case No. 502/2021 | Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad | Judgment dated 11.05.2026 The court acquitted advocate Santosh Purushottam Joshi of charges under IPC sections 420 (fraud), 465 (forgery), and 468 (forgery for cheating) relating to an alleged property transaction fraud. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused deceived the complainant regarding the sale of a flat; credible evidence of fraudulent intent or deliberate misrepresentation was absent, and witness testimony proved unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts