State of Maharashtra vs Shankar Ramchandra Bodake Advocate - Kadam Namdev Ranganath — 201/2020

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498(a), 323, 504, 506, 34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.

Evidence Part Heard Next hearing 20-Apr-2026 this date has passed

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHPU170011572020

Filing Number

918/2020

Filing Date

08-Sep-2020

Registration No

201/2020

Registration Date

08-Sep-2020

Court

Civil Court,Indapur

Judge

1-2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

Last updated 06-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

509

Police Station

INDAPUR POLICE STATION

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 498(a), 323, 504, 506, 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shankar Ramchandra Bodake Advocate - Kadam Namdev Ranganath

  2. 2.Madhuri Shankar Bodake

  3. 3.Suman Ramchandra Bodake

  4. 4.Dattatray Ramchandra Bodake

  5. 5.Anita Dattatray Bodake

  6. 6.Navnath Keshav Bodade

  7. 7.Pappu Keshav Bodake

    Adv. Ghogare Ashok Bayaji

Case History

  1. 20-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  3. 19-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  4. 17-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  5. 17-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  6. 08-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  7. 03-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  8. 04-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  9. 03-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  10. 29-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  11. 25-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  12. 10-Feb-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary: The court rejected the discharge application filed by accused nos. 1-7 under Section 239 of the CrPC. The accused argued that the informant was not a legally wedded wife of accused no. 1, citing that she was married to another person at the time, and therefore Section 498-A IPC did not apply. However, the court held that since charges had already been framed on 08/09/2020, the discharge application was not maintainable at that stage, and the application could only be considered before charge-framing. Additionally, marriage photographs filed with the chargesheet prima facie established a valid marriage, warranting trial before conclusions could be drawn. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  13. 10-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  14. 02-Jan-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  15. 05-Dec-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  16. 04-Nov-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  17. 05-Sep-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  18. 08-Jul-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  19. 01-Apr-2024

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  20. 22-Jan-2024

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  21. 18-Dec-2023

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  22. 08-Nov-2023

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  23. 05-Oct-2023

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  24. 21-Aug-2023

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  25. 19-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  26. 20-May-2023

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  27. 24-Apr-2023

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  28. 04-Mar-2023

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  29. 04-Feb-2023

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  30. 07-Jan-2023

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  31. 19-Nov-2022

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  32. 10-Oct-2022

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  33. 20-Aug-2022

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  34. 06-Jul-2022

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  35. 12-May-2022

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  36. 13-Apr-2022

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  37. 24-Feb-2022

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  38. 19-Jan-2022

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  39. 10-Dec-2021

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  40. 25-Oct-2021

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  41. 15-Sep-2021

    Hearing

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  42. 19-Jul-2021

    Hearing

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  43. 01-Jun-2021

    Hearing

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  44. 19-Apr-2021

    Hearing

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  45. 08-Feb-2021

    Hearing

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  46. 10-Nov-2020

    Hearing

    Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur.

  47. 08-Sep-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  48. 08-Sep-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 201/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected the discharge application filed by accused nos. 1-7 under Section 239 of the CrPC. The accused argued that the informant was not a legally wedded wife of accused no. 1, citing that she was married to another person at the time, and therefore Section 498-A IPC did not apply. However, the court held that since charges had already been framed on 08/09/2020, the discharge application was not maintainable at that stage, and the application could only be considered before charge-framing. Additionally, marriage photographs filed with the chargesheet prima facie established a valid marriage, warranting trial before conclusions could be drawn. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case