Shantilal Supadsing Janghale vs Ravi Bhagwan Buge — 1303/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),352,351(2),3(5). Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 12th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHAU070074862025
e-Filing Number
16-12-2025
Filing Number
2366/2025
Filing Date
20-Dec-2025
Registration No
1303/2025
Registration Date
22-Dec-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Gangapur
Judge
4-II Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.m.f.c., Gangapur
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Shantilal Supadsing Janghale
Adv. Shaha A I
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ravi Bhagwan Buge
-
2.Anjali Ravi Buge
-
3.Sagar Vijay Bade
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case Summary: Shantilal Supadsing Janghale v. Ravi Bhagwan Buge (S.C.C. 1303/2025) The court dismissed the complaint under Section 226 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, finding no sufficient grounds for criminal proceedings. The complainant alleged obstruction and threats when attempting to access agricultural land (Gat no. 20), but the court found that the accused had legally purchased the land through registered sale deeds in 2003, with their names continuously mutated on revenue records since then, while the complainant held no ownership interest beyond being a witness to the 2003 transaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
II Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.m.f.c., Gangapur
-
09-Mar-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
II Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.m.f.c., Gangapur
-
05-Feb-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
II Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.m.f.c., Gangapur
-
23-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1303/2025
Case Summary: Shantilal Supadsing Janghale v. Ravi Bhagwan Buge (S.C.C. 1303/2025) The court dismissed the complaint under Section 226 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, finding no sufficient grounds for criminal proceedings. The complainant alleged obstruction and threats when attempting to access agricultural land (Gat no. 20), but the court found that the accused had legally purchased the land through registered sale deeds in 2003, with their names continuously mutated on revenue records since then, while the complainant held no ownership interest beyond being a witness to the 2003 transaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts