State of Maharashtra vs Dinesh Jagannath Hindule — 99/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498,323,504,506,34. Disposed: Contested--DISCHARGED on 07th May 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHOS150016242017
Filing Number
807/2017
Filing Date
27-07-2017
Registration No
99/2017
Registration Date
27-07-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Paranda
Judge
1-Jt.Civil Judge J.D.J.M.F.C. Paranda
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISCHARGED
FIR Details
FIR Number
85
Police Station
Paranda Police Station
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. App...
Respondent(s)
Dinesh Jagannath Hindule
Jagannath Pandurang HIndule
Umesh Jagannath Hindule
Kaushalya Jagannath Hindule
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt.Civil Judge J.D.J.M.F.C. Paranda
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 15-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-04-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Dinesh Jagannath Hindule & Others (99/2017) The court acquitted all four accused (Dinesh Jagannath Hindule, Jagannath Pandurang Hindule, Umesh Jagannath Hindule, and Kaushaly Jagannath Hindule) of charges under IPC sections 498(a), 323, 504, 506, and 34. The prosecution failed to present witnesses on multiple adjournments despite repeated court directions, resulting in no credible evidence against the accused. Given the case's eight-year pendency and absence of sufficient evidence to establish guilt, the court found the accused entitled to acquittal under CrPC section 239. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Dinesh Jagannath Hindule & Others (99/2017) The court acquitted all four accused (Dinesh Jagannath Hindule, Jagannath Pandurang Hindule, Umesh Jagannath Hindule, and Kaushaly Jagannath Hindule) of charges under IPC sections 498(a), 323, 504, 506, and 34. The prosecution failed to present witnesses on multiple adjournments despite repeated court directions, resulting in no credible evidence against the accused. Given the case's eight-year pendency and absence of sufficient evidence to establish guilt, the court found the accused entitled to acquittal under CrPC section 239. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts