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
20-12-2025
Registration No
1303/2025
Registration Date
22-12-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Gangapur
Judge
4-II JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C., GANGAPUR
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shantilal Supadsing Janghale
Adv. Shaha A I
Respondent(s)
Ravi Bhagwan Buge
Anjali Ravi Buge
Sagar Vijay Bade
Hearing History
Judge: 4-II JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C., GANGAPUR
Disposed
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Awaiting Notice
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 05-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 23-12-2025 | Awaiting Notice |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts