State of Maharashtra vs Ranveer Ujiram Chaudhari — 398/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 130(1),177. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHRG060006032025

Filing Number

489/2025

Filing Date

06-May-2025

Registration No

398/2025

Registration Date

06-May-2025

Court

Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C., Pen

Judge

2-Civil Judge Jd and JMFC Pen

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section 130(1),177

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ranveer Ujiram Chaudhari

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Maharashtra vs. Ranveer Ujiram Chaudhari (SCC 398/2025) The court discontinued proceedings under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code and discharged the accused of Motor Vehicle Act violations (Sections 130(1)/177) after the accused failed to appear despite nine months of case pendency and multiple tracing efforts. The court found no justification to keep a fine-only offense pending indefinitely; police records were retained for potential case reopening under CrPC Section 300(5). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC Pen

  4. 10-Dec-2025

    Lok-Nyayalaya

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC Pen

  5. 13-Sep-2025

    Lok-Nyayalaya

    Civil Judge Jd and JMFC Pen

  6. 10-May-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 06-May-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 398/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra vs. Ranveer Ujiram Chaudhari (SCC 398/2025) The court discontinued proceedings under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code and discharged the accused of Motor Vehicle Act violations (Sections 130(1)/177) after the accused failed to appear despite nine months of case pendency and multiple tracing efforts. The court found no justification to keep a fine-only offense pending indefinitely; police records were retained for potential case reopening under CrPC Section 300(5). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case