State of Maharashtra P.S.O. Kuhi vs Mangesh Purushottam Thawkar — 308/2026

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: MHNG110003862026

Filing Number

361/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

308/2026

Registration Date

11-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

152

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.Mangesh Purushottam Thawkar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    In Case 308/2026, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kuhi convicted accused Mangesh Purushottam Thawkar of obstructing a public way by parking his vehicle (MH 40-2215) in a manner that obstructed navigation, in violation of Section 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court accepted the accused's voluntary guilty plea and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500, with a default provision of 3 days simple imprisonment, considering 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. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 308/2026

casestatus.in Summary

In Case 308/2026, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kuhi convicted accused Mangesh Purushottam Thawkar of obstructing a public way by parking his vehicle (MH 40-2215) in a manner that obstructed navigation, in violation of Section 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court accepted the accused's voluntary guilty plea and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500, with a default provision of 3 days simple imprisonment, considering 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