State of Maharashtra vs Prakash Bhujang Sonkamble Advocate - Khade Dayanand D. — 44/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 324,323,504,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHND250002672022

e-Filing Number

01-06-2022

Filing Number

163/2022

Filing Date

09-Jun-2022

Registration No

44/2022

Registration Date

09-Jun-2022

Court

Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Umri

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

97

Police Station

Umri

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 324,323,504,506,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. A.P.P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Prakash Bhujang Sonkamble Advocate - Khade Dayanand D.

  2. 2.Bhimrao Bhujang Sonkamble

    Adv. Khade Dayanand D.

  3. 3.Shobhabai Bhujang Sonkamble

    Adv. Khade Dayanand D.

  4. 4.Bhujang Sonkamble

    Adv. Khade Dayanand D.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Prakash Bhujang Sonkamble & Others (44/2022) The court acquitted all four accused of charges under IPC sections 324, 323, 504, 506 with section 34 (criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and criminal intimidation). The court found that while a settlement/compromise had been reached between the complainant and accused, the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence, particularly noting the complainant's testimony was unreliable due to her cooperation with the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  7. 13-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  8. 03-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  9. 12-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  10. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  11. 08-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  12. 21-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  13. 13-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  14. 07-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  15. 05-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  16. 15-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  17. 25-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  18. 14-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  19. 01-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  20. 03-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  21. 25-Jul-2024

    Plea / Particulars

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  22. 01-Jul-2024

    Plea / Particulars

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  23. 03-Apr-2024

    Awaiting Warrant

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  24. 19-Jan-2024

    Awaiting Warrant

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  25. 09-Nov-2023

    Awaiting Warrant

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  26. 17-Aug-2023

    Awaiting Warrant

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  27. 30-May-2023

    Awaiting Warrant

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  28. 25-Apr-2023

    Awaiting Warrant

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  29. 27-Jan-2023

    Appearance

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  30. 18-Nov-2022

    Appearance

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC

  31. 29-Aug-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 09-Jun-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 44/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Prakash Bhujang Sonkamble & Others (44/2022) The court acquitted all four accused of charges under IPC sections 324, 323, 504, 506 with section 34 (criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and criminal intimidation). The court found that while a settlement/compromise had been reached between the complainant and accused, the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence, particularly noting the complainant's testimony was unreliable due to her cooperation with the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case