State of Maharashtra P.S.O. Kuhi vs Pravin Chandrabhan Lute — 281/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 285. Disposed: Uncontested--CONVICTED ON PLEAD GUILTY / PLEA BARGAINING on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHNG110003602026

Filing Number

337/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

281/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Judge Junior Division , Kuhi

Judge

1-Civil JudgeJr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Kuhi

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--CONVICTED ON PLEAD GUILTY / PLEA BARGAINING

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

168

Police Station

Kuhi

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 285

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra P.S.O. Kuhi

    Adv. A.P.P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pravin Chandrabhan Lute

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary of Case 281/2026 The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kuhi convicted accused Pravin Chandrabhan Lute of obstructing a public way by parking his vehicle (MH 40 FK 0247) in a manner that obstructed navigation, violating Section 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court accepted his voluntary guilty plea and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500, with default imprisonment of 3 days, considering the nature of the offense, his weak economic condition, and family responsibilities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Civil JudgeJr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Kuhi

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 281/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 281/2026 The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kuhi convicted accused Pravin Chandrabhan Lute of obstructing a public way by parking his vehicle (MH 40 FK 0247) in a manner that obstructed navigation, violating Section 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court accepted his voluntary guilty plea and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500, with default imprisonment of 3 days, considering the nature of the offense, his weak economic condition, and family responsibilities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case