State of Maharashtra vs Pratiksha Ajay Pantawane — 229/2021
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 10th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHNG080004862021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
430/2021
Filing Date
23-02-2021
Registration No
229/2021
Registration Date
23-02-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Kamptee
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Pratiksha Ajay Pantawane
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C
Disposed
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Warrant
Awaiting Warrant
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 04-02-2026 | Awaiting Summons | |
| 18-12-2025 | Awaiting Summons | |
| 27-10-2025 | Awaiting Warrant | |
| 11-09-2025 | Awaiting Warrant |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Judicial Magistrate First Class court in Nagpur stopped proceedings against accused Pratiksha under Section 258 of the CrPC in a case pending since 2021 involving alleged violation of Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The court found that the accused had been absent since the charge sheet filing, multiple summons and warrants proved ineffective, and no realistic prospect existed of locating the accused; therefore, continuing the case served no purpose. The accused was released and seized materials were directed to the State Excise Department for disposal per law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class court in Nagpur stopped proceedings against accused Pratiksha under Section 258 of the CrPC in a case pending since 2021 involving alleged violation of Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The court found that the accused had been absent since the charge sheet filing, multiple summons and warrants proved ineffective, and no realistic prospect existed of locating the accused; therefore, continuing the case served no purpose. The accused was released and seized materials were directed to the State Excise Department for disposal per law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts