State of Maharashtra PSO, Shegaon City vs Dnyaneshwar Ramkrushna Dhamal — 100/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 188,269,270,3,51(b),135. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 11th March 2026.

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHBU070002032022

Case disposed

Filing Number

152/2022

Filing Date

09-02-2022

Registration No

100/2022

Registration Date

09-02-2022

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , shegaon

Judge

2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.

Decision Date

11th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

FIR Details

FIR Number

618

Police Station

Shegaon

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 188,269,270,3,51(b),135

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra PSO, Shegaon City

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Dnyaneshwar Ramkrushna Dhamal

Shubham Vitthalrao Dhage

Akash Subhash Gawande

Shrikabt Rajendra Deshmukh

Ganesh Tulsiram Vasatkat

Dnyaneshwar Sudama Patane

Akshay Mohan Shendre

Shyam Gajanan Adhao

Pravin Arvind Morkhade

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.

11-03-2026

Disposed

20-01-2026

Awaiting Summons

13-11-2025

Awaiting Summons

29-08-2025

Awaiting Summons

25-06-2025

Awaiting Summons

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

The court stopped proceedings and discharged the accused under Section 258 CrPC in a 3-year-old case involving offences under IPC Sections 188, 269, 270 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005, citing prolonged absence of accused, failure to secure their presence despite summons, and lack of prosecution progress. The court found it a fit case for closure under the Special Drive for reducing judicial pendency, and cancelled any bail bonds furnished by the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court stopped proceedings and discharged the accused under Section 258 CrPC in a 3-year-old case involving offences under IPC Sections 188, 269, 270 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005, citing prolonged absence of accused, failure to secure their presence despite summons, and lack of prosecution progress. The court found it a fit case for closure under the Special Drive for reducing judicial pendency, and cancelled any bail bonds furnished by 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 , shegaon All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case