THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs Prakash Shankar Ghule and othr - 3 Advocate - Shekde V.H. — 174/2019

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 452,354,323,504,506,427,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th April 2026.

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHBI140017952019

Case disposed

Filing Number

929/2019

Filing Date

19-09-2019

Registration No

174/2019

Registration Date

19-09-2019

Court

Civil Court Junior Division ,Ashti

Judge

1-JOINT JMFC ASHTI

Decision Date

10th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

0194

Police Station

Ambhora Police Station

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 452,354,323,504,506,427,34

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Respondent(s)

Prakash Shankar Ghule and othr - 3 Advocate - Shekde V.H.

Parubai Shankar Ghule

Dharmanath Prabhakar Shirsath

Vikas Shankar Ghule

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JOINT JMFC ASHTI

10-04-2026

Disposed

08-04-2026

Evidence

07-04-2026

Evidence

12-03-2026

Evidence

12-02-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

10-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The court acquitted all four accused (Prakash Shankar Ghule, Parubai Shankar Ghule, Dharmanath Prabhakar Shirsat, and Nikash Shankar Ghule) of charges under IPC Sections 354, 452, 323, 427, 504, and 506 with Section 34. The judge found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's testimony was contradictory and unsupported by credible evidence or proper documentation. The court noted insufficient material evidence to prove the alleged assault and house invasion against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted all four accused (Prakash Shankar Ghule, Parubai Shankar Ghule, Dharmanath Prabhakar Shirsat, and Nikash Shankar Ghule) of charges under IPC Sections 354, 452, 323, 427, 504, and 506 with Section 34. The judge found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's testimony was contradictory and unsupported by credible evidence or proper documentation. The court noted insufficient material evidence to prove the alleged assault and house invasion against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division ,Ashti All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case