Ashok Sahebrao Dandge vs State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Khultabad — 16/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 12th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHAU100000282026
e-Filing Number
14-01-2026
Filing Number
18/2026
Filing Date
16-Jan-2026
Registration No
16/2026
Registration Date
17-Jan-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Khultabad
Judge
1-Jt. CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Khultabad
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ashok Sahebrao Dandge
Adv. Dinkar Punjaram Kale
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Khultabad
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Summary: The court dismissed the criminal application filed by Ashok Sahebrao Dandge against the State of Maharashtra (Police Station Khultabad) under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court found that the applicant and his advocate had been absent for an extended period and failed to take necessary steps to secure the respondent's presence, demonstrating lack of willingness to proceed. Given the lack of progress and a concurrent special drive period, the court determined no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
Jt. CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Khultabad
-
11-Feb-2026
Reply/Say
Jt. CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Khultabad
-
05-Feb-2026
Reply/Say
Jt. CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Khultabad
-
30-Jan-2026
Reply/Say
Jt. CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Khultabad
-
27-Jan-2026
Reply/Say
Jt. CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Khultabad
-
19-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 16/2026
Summary: The court dismissed the criminal application filed by Ashok Sahebrao Dandge against the State of Maharashtra (Police Station Khultabad) under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court found that the applicant and his advocate had been absent for an extended period and failed to take necessary steps to secure the respondent's presence, demonstrating lack of willingness to proceed. Given the lack of progress and a concurrent special drive period, the court determined no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts