State Thr Jaikheda Police Stn, Satana vs Madhuri Dattatray Thakare Advocate - Jadhav Kalpana S — 71/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,120B,34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHNS070013492023
Next Hearing
08th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
885/2023
Filing Date
13-07-2023
Registration No
71/2023
Registration Date
13-07-2023
Court
District Court-1 ,Malegaon
Judge
5-District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegoan
FIR Details
FIR Number
117
Police Station
JAYKHEDA POLICE STATION
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Thr Jaikheda Police Stn, Satana
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Madhuri Dattatray Thakare Advocate - Jadhav Kalpana S
Bharat @ Rinku Ilachand Patil
Rakesh Pavba Sawale
Hearing History
Judge: 5-District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegoan
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 11-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Sessions Case No. 71 of 2023 (State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Dattatraya Thakare and others), the case was adjourned to 15.03.2025. Accused No. 1 (Madhuri Thakare) was ready to proceed with the charge framing hearing, but Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Bharat and Rakesh) were unprepared as their engaged advocate was absent and vakalatnama was not filed; they declined government legal aid. The court noted that trial could not commence due to non-cooperation by Accused Nos. 2 and 3. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Sessions Case No. 71 of 2023 (State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Dattatraya Thakare and others), the case was adjourned to 15.03.2025. Accused No. 1 (Madhuri Thakare) was ready to proceed with the charge framing hearing, but Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Bharat and Rakesh) were unprepared as their engaged advocate was absent and vakalatnama was not filed; they declined government legal aid. The court noted that trial could not commence due to non-cooperation by Accused Nos. 2 and 3. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts