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

Case disposed

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

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(e)

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

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

10-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Kamptee All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case