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.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHRG070008892024
e-Filing Number
04-09-2024
Filing Number
675/2024
Filing Date
23-09-2024
Registration No
99/2024
Registration Date
23-09-2024
Court
Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Karjat
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KARJAT
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shaila Maruti Dabhane
Adv. MAYEKAR UTTARA MURLIDHAR
Respondent(s)
Krushna Kumar Thakur Advocate - Nigudkar Rajendra Pandharinath
Nandu Narayan Gangawane
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KARJAT
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 30-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts