State of Maharashtra vs Chapat Dattram Hambarde Advocate - Sk. Abdul Kalam — 82/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341, 506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHND250002202024

Filing Number

172/2024

Filing Date

26-Feb-2024

Registration No

82/2024

Registration Date

26-Feb-2024

Court

Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Umri

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 341, 506,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. A.P.P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Chapat Dattram Hambarde Advocate - Sk. Abdul Kalam

  2. 2.Dattram Shankar Hambarde

    Adv. Sk. Abdul Kalam

  3. 3.Ansaji Shankr Hambarde

    Adv. Sk. Abdul Kalam

  4. 4.Maroti Ansaji Hambarde

    Adv. Sk. Abdul Kalam

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary of Case 82/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted all four accused (Champat Dattaram Hambarde, Dattaram Shankara Hambarde, Ansaji Shankar Hambarde, and Maroti Ansaji Hambarde) under IPC Sections 341, 506 with Section 34, finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges. Key Reasoning: The sole prosecution witness (complainant/witness No. 1) provided vague testimony, merely stating there was a "disturbance" on the date in question without substantiating the specific allegations of criminal intimidation or threatening gestures. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had deliberately obstructed the complainant or made threatening statements, as required under criminal law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  4. 02-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  8. 16-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  9. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  10. 11-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  11. 30-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  12. 08-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  13. 26-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  14. 25-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  15. 24-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  16. 25-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  17. 28-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  18. 26-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  19. 07-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  20. 18-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  21. 19-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  22. 05-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  23. 30-Jul-2024

    Awaiting Warrant

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  24. 29-Jul-2024

    Awaiting Warrant

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  25. 03-Jul-2024

    Awaiting Warrant

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  26. 04-Apr-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 26-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 82/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 82/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted all four accused (Champat Dattaram Hambarde, Dattaram Shankara Hambarde, Ansaji Shankar Hambarde, and Maroti Ansaji Hambarde) under IPC Sections 341, 506 with Section 34, finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges. Key Reasoning: The sole prosecution witness (complainant/witness No. 1) provided vague testimony, merely stating there was a "disturbance" on the date in question without substantiating the specific allegations of criminal intimidation or threatening gestures. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had deliberately obstructed the complainant or made threatening statements, as required under criminal law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case