Shaila Maruti Dabhane vs Krushna Kumar Thakur Advocate - Nigudkar Rajendra Pandharinath — 99/2024

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(2),318(4),336(3),3(5). Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 16th April 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHRG070008892024

e-Filing Number

04-09-2024

Filing Number

675/2024

Filing Date

23-Sep-2024

Registration No

99/2024

Registration Date

23-Sep-2024

Court

Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Karjat

Judge

2-CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

Decision Date

16-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(2),318(4),336(3),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shaila Maruti Dabhane

    Adv. MAYEKAR UTTARA MURLIDHAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Krushna Kumar Thakur Advocate - Nigudkar Rajendra Pandharinath

  2. 2.Nandu Narayan Gangawane

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary Shaila Maruti Dabhane v. Krushna Kumar Thakur & Others (Case 99/2024) The court dismissed the complaint filed by Shaila Maruti Dabhane against the respondents for alleged forgery of a power of attorney, fraudulent property transfer, and misappropriation of land acquisition compensation. The Judicial Magistrate found insufficient prima facie evidence of deliberate forgery or criminal intent, noting that the core dispute concerns heirship, title validity, and inheritance rights—matters already under inquiry before revenue authorities and therefore primarily civil/revenue issues rather than criminal ones. The court emphasized that the complaint was filed 15 years after the sale deeds were executed, only after substantial compensation became payable, and lacked corroborating witness testimony or forensic evidence to substantiate forgery allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  7. 05-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  8. 05-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  9. 26-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  10. 04-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  11. 16-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  12. 25-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  13. 08-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  14. 21-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  15. 30-Jul-2025

    Documents

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  16. 08-Jul-2025

    Documents

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  17. 10-Jun-2025

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  18. 25-Apr-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  19. 02-Apr-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  20. 11-Mar-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  21. 28-Feb-2025

    Report

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  22. 13-Jan-2025

    Report

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  23. 18-Dec-2024

    Report

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  24. 05-Nov-2024

    Awaiting Summons

    CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Karjat

  25. 08-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 23-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 99/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Shaila Maruti Dabhane v. Krushna Kumar Thakur & Others (Case 99/2024) The court dismissed the complaint filed by Shaila Maruti Dabhane against the respondents for alleged forgery of a power of attorney, fraudulent property transfer, and misappropriation of land acquisition compensation. The Judicial Magistrate found insufficient prima facie evidence of deliberate forgery or criminal intent, noting that the core dispute concerns heirship, title validity, and inheritance rights—matters already under inquiry before revenue authorities and therefore primarily civil/revenue issues rather than criminal ones. The court emphasized that the complaint was filed 15 years after the sale deeds were executed, only after substantial compensation became payable, and lacked corroborating witness testimony or forensic evidence to substantiate forgery allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case