The State Of Maharashtra vs Arun Subhash Matkar — 66/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,115(2),352,351(3),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 02nd May 2026.

R.C.C. - Reg.Cri.Case

CNR: MHBU130004062025

Case disposed

Filing Number

370/2025

Filing Date

24-02-2025

Registration No

66/2025

Registration Date

24-02-2025

Court

Civil Judge Junior Division , Chikhli

Judge

2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Chikhali

Decision Date

02nd May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

584

Police Station

Chikhli

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,115(2),352,351(3),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

The State Of Maharashtra

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Arun Subhash Matkar

Usha Subhash Matkar

Subhash Niyaram Matkar

Gajanan Subhash Matkar

Ganesh Subhash Matkar

Balu Hari Gaikwad

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Chikhali

02-05-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

Arguments

26-02-2026

Arguments

11-02-2026

Arguments

03-11-2025

Charge

Final Orders / Judgements

02-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The court acquitted all six accused in a dowry harassment and cruelty case filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws. The judgment, issued on May 2, 2026, by the First Class Magistrate Court in Chikhali (Buldhana district, Maharashtra), found that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence to prove the charges under Indian Penal Code sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), and 3(5) despite accepting the accused's crime scene statement. The complainant's own testimony lacked specific details about the alleged demand of ₹3 lakh for a car and the harassment she claimed to have suffered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted all six accused in a dowry harassment and cruelty case filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws. The judgment, issued on May 2, 2026, by the First Class Magistrate Court in Chikhali (Buldhana district, Maharashtra), found that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence to prove the charges under Indian Penal Code sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), and 3(5) despite accepting the accused's crime scene statement. The complainant's own testimony lacked specific details about the alleged demand of ₹3 lakh for a car and the harassment she claimed to have suffered. 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 Judge Junior Division , Chikhli All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case