Sangita Pralhad Janjal vs The State Of Maharashtra Advocate - APP — 313/2022
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 156(3). Status: Dismissal Order. Next hearing: 17th July 2026.
Cri.M.A.
CNR: MHBU130020652022
Next Hearing
17th July 2026
Filing Number
1803/2022
Filing Date
27-07-2022
Registration No
313/2022
Registration Date
27-07-2022
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division , Chikhli
Judge
3-2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Chikhali
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sangita Pralhad Janjal
Adv. Deshmukh AT
Respondent(s)
The State Of Maharashtra Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Chikhali
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 11-03-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 26-12-2025 | Dismissal Order |
| 30-09-2025 | Dismissal Order |
| 08-07-2025 | Dismissal Order |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition filed by Sangita Janjal seeking directions under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to register an FIR and conduct investigation against her husband and in-laws for alleged dowry harassment, physical/mental abuse, and forced miscarriage has been rejected. The court found that the complainant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of first approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the CrPC, and noted that the dispute is primarily matrimonial in nature, making it unsuitable for invoking the magistrate's discretionary powers under Section 156(3). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition filed by Sangita Janjal seeking directions under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to register an FIR and conduct investigation against her husband and in-laws for alleged dowry harassment, physical/mental abuse, and forced miscarriage has been rejected. The court found that the complainant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of first approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the CrPC, and noted that the dispute is primarily matrimonial in nature, making it unsuitable for invoking the magistrate's discretionary powers under Section 156(3). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts