State of Maharashtra Through Ajara police Station Ajara vs Rupak Mahadev Tejam — 597/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 128(1)194(c). Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHKO150009312025

Filing Number

807/2025

Filing Date

20-Nov-2025

Registration No

597/2025

Registration Date

20-Nov-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Ajara

Judge

1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section 128(1)194(c)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra Through Ajara police Station Ajara

    Adv. A. P. P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Rupak Mahadev Tejam

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ajara stopped proceedings in the summary case State vs. Rupak under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and discharged the accused. The court found that despite the case being pending for over five months and the prosecution being given sufficient opportunities, the prosecution failed to secure the accused's presence and did not even file summons reports, making further pendency purposeless. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara

  4. 18-Feb-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara

  5. 13-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara

  6. 24-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 20-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 597/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ajara stopped proceedings in the summary case State vs. Rupak under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and discharged the accused. The court found that despite the case being pending for over five months and the prosecution being given sufficient opportunities, the prosecution failed to secure the accused's presence and did not even file summons reports, making further pendency purposeless. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case