State vs Narayan Yadav Jivrak Advocate - Mogal Adesh S. — 83/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 392,427,323,504,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 04th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHNS130006392016
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
549/2016
Filing Date
18-06-2016
Registration No
83/2016
Registration Date
18-06-2016
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Pimpalgaon Baswant
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Decision Date
04th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
01
Police Station
OZAR POLICE STATION
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. Tadvi Abid B. APP
Respondent(s)
Narayan Yadav Jivrak Advocate - Mogal Adesh S.
Yogita Narayan Jivrak
Adv. Mogal Adesh S.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 02-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class court acquitted both accused persons (Narayan Yadav Jivrak and Yogita Narayan Jivrak) of charges under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506, and 427 IPC, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences of robbery, hurt, insult, criminal intimidation, and mischief beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the informant's sole testimony lacked corroboration from witnesses and medical evidence, and material aspects of the prosecution's case—particularly the chain snatching and injuries—remained unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class court acquitted both accused persons (Narayan Yadav Jivrak and Yogita Narayan Jivrak) of charges under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506, and 427 IPC, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences of robbery, hurt, insult, criminal intimidation, and mischief beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the informant's sole testimony lacked corroboration from witnesses and medical evidence, and material aspects of the prosecution's case—particularly the chain snatching and injuries—remained unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts