The State Of Maharashtra vs Parasharam Kautik Mohite Advocate - SABLE S.M. — 700144/1995
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498(a),323,34. Disposed: Uncontested--DISCHARGED on 07th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHJN060000311995
Filing Number
700144/1995
Filing Date
26-07-1995
Registration No
700144/1995
Registration Date
26-07-1995
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Bhokardan
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. BHOKARDAN..
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISCHARGED
FIR Details
FIR Number
78
Police Station
Bhokardan
Year
1995
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State Of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Parasharam Kautik Mohite Advocate - SABLE S.M.
Yashodabai Parsharam Mohite
Ambadas Parsharam Mohite
Prakash Parsharam Mohite
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. BHOKARDAN..
Disposed
N.B.W._Unready
N.B.W._Unready
Steps_Unready
N.B.W._Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | N.B.W._Unready |
| 16-03-2026 | N.B.W._Unready |
| 06-03-2026 | Steps_Unready |
| 10-02-2026 | N.B.W._Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: The court discharged all three accused (Parashram Kautik Mohite, Yashodabai Parashram Mohite, and Ambadas Parashram Mohite) from charges under IPC Sections 498-A and 323 after the case remained pending since 1995. Despite issuing non-bailable warrants and proclamations, the prosecution failed to secure the accused's presence, and prosecution witnesses were also untraceable. The court found no purpose in prolonging proceedings and closed the case, while clarifying that discharge does not constitute acquittal and prosecution may re-prosecute if evidence becomes available in future. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The court discharged all three accused (Parashram Kautik Mohite, Yashodabai Parashram Mohite, and Ambadas Parashram Mohite) from charges under IPC Sections 498-A and 323 after the case remained pending since 1995. Despite issuing non-bailable warrants and proclamations, the prosecution failed to secure the accused's presence, and prosecution witnesses were also untraceable. The court found no purpose in prolonging proceedings and closed the case, while clarifying that discharge does not constitute acquittal and prosecution may re-prosecute if evidence becomes available in future. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts