State of Maharashtra vs Jijabai Pandit Bankar Advocate - A. V. Hilage — 1133/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,504,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 08th May 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO030038532020
Filing Number
3954/2020
Filing Date
02-07-2020
Registration No
1133/2020
Registration Date
03-07-2020
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Kolhapur
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Kolhapur
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
443
Police Station
Shahupuri Police Station
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A. P. P.
Respondent(s)
Jijabai Pandit Bankar Advocate - A. V. Hilage
Dhanashri Dhanaji Bankar
Dhanaji Pandir Bankar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Kolhapur
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 21-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-04-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kolhapur acquitted all three defendants (Jijabai Pandit Bankar, Dhanashri Dhanaji Bankar, and Dhanaji Pandit Bankar) of charges under the Maharashtra Moneylenders Regulation Act 2014 (sections 39, 45) and Indian Penal Code (sections 323, 504, 506) on May 8, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants engaged in illegal moneylending, collected repayment through intimidation, or caused intentional hurt to the complainant, due to insufficient evidence and lack of specific details regarding the alleged transactions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kolhapur acquitted all three defendants (Jijabai Pandit Bankar, Dhanashri Dhanaji Bankar, and Dhanaji Pandit Bankar) of charges under the Maharashtra Moneylenders Regulation Act 2014 (sections 39, 45) and Indian Penal Code (sections 323, 504, 506) on May 8, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants engaged in illegal moneylending, collected repayment through intimidation, or caused intentional hurt to the complainant, due to insufficient evidence and lack of specific details regarding the alleged transactions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts