Pandit Gorakh Bhil vs Sharad Karbhari Aher — 18/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4)314,319,320,323,324(2),324(4),(5),335,336. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE on 11th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHDH040001462026
e-Filing Number
01-03-2026
Filing Number
98/2026
Filing Date
04-Mar-2026
Registration No
18/2026
Registration Date
04-Mar-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Dondaicha
Judge
1-Civil Judge J. D. and J.M.F.C.Dondaicha
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE
Last updated 13-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Pandit Gorakh Bhil
Adv. PATIL ASHOK DAULAT
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sharad Karbhari Aher
-
2.Ramdas Nimba Chavhan
-
3.Kalpesh Chudhari
-
4.Laxman Rangnath Mali
-
5.HDFC Loan officer
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dondaicha rejected the applicant's request for a police investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS into alleged fraud and unauthorized seizure of a tractor by five accused persons. The court found the application was filed with a one-year delay, material facts were withheld, and the applicant could reasonably procure necessary evidence independently. However, the court registered the matter as a Regular Criminal Case in view of the applicant's alternative prayer for appropriate legal action against the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
Civil Judge J. D. and J.M.F.C.Dondaicha
-
09-Mar-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge J. D. and J.M.F.C.Dondaicha
-
04-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 18/2026
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dondaicha rejected the applicant's request for a police investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS into alleged fraud and unauthorized seizure of a tractor by five accused persons. The court found the application was filed with a one-year delay, material facts were withheld, and the applicant could reasonably procure necessary evidence independently. However, the court registered the matter as a Regular Criminal Case in view of the applicant's alternative prayer for appropriate legal action against the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts