State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Armori vs Manik Shrawan Mankar and other Advocate - P.R.Dhonge — 90/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 118(1),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 04th May 2026.

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHGA040007792025

Case disposed

Filing Number

697/2025

Filing Date

15-12-2025

Registration No

90/2025

Registration Date

15-12-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Divion , Armori

Judge

1-Civil Judge [Jr.Dn] J.M.F.C. Armori

Decision Date

04th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

338

Police Station

Armori

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 118(1),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Armori

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Manik Shrawan Mankar and other Advocate - P.R.Dhonge

Ritik Moreshwar Sayam

Rajeshwar Hanuji Dumane

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge [Jr.Dn] J.M.F.C. Armori

04-05-2026

Disposed

29-04-2026

Evidence

12-03-2026

Evidence

02-02-2026

Evidence

15-12-2025

Charge

Final Orders / Judgements

04-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: 90/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Manik Shrawan Mankar, Ritik Moreshwar Sayam, and Rajeshwar Hanuji Dumane) of charges under IPC Sections 118(1) and 3(5), finding the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant, an injured witness, contradicted his initial FIR statement during cross-examination, admitting he had settled the matter with the accused outside court, which fatally weakened the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 90/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Manik Shrawan Mankar, Ritik Moreshwar Sayam, and Rajeshwar Hanuji Dumane) of charges under IPC Sections 118(1) and 3(5), finding the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant, an injured witness, contradicted his initial FIR statement during cross-examination, admitting he had settled the matter with the accused outside court, which fatally weakened the prosecution's case. 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 Divion , Armori All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case