Anant Mahadev Gurav etc.3 vs Govind Mahadev Muge etc.6 Advocate - Kadam Abhijeet Ashok — 4/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING on 16th March 2026.
Cri.Rev.App. - Criminal Revision Application
CNR: MHRT010001292026
e-Filing Number
02-03-2026
Filing Number
45/2026
Filing Date
02-03-2026
Registration No
4/2026
Registration Date
02-03-2026
Court
District and session court , Ratnagiri
Judge
1-Principal District Sessions Judge Ratnagiri.
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anant Mahadev Gurav etc.3
Adv. Sakhalkar Vijay Manohar
Namdev Gangaram Gurav
Adv. Sakhalkar Vijay Manohar
Santosh Narayan Gurav
Adv. Sakhalkar Vijay Manohar
Respondent(s)
Govind Mahadev Muge etc.6 Advocate - Kadam Abhijeet Ashok
Sitaram Shankar Wadekar
Deu Ganpat Ghume
Krishna Mahadev Gurav
Vidyadhar Shashikant Karambelkar
State Of Maharashtra Through Collector
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Sessions Judge Ratnagiri.
Disposed
Order
Order
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 13-03-2026 | Order | |
| 12-03-2026 | Order | |
| 11-03-2026 | Order | |
| 10-03-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri rejected a revision application by the Gurav families challenging the Executive Magistrate's order permitting both parties to celebrate the Shimgostav festival. The court held that while a dispute existed regarding temple key handover between the families, deciding substantive rights to perform rituals fell outside the magistrate's jurisdiction under Sections 163-164 of the BNSS, and the parties must pursue appropriate legal remedies separately for such claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri rejected a revision application by the Gurav families challenging the Executive Magistrate's order permitting both parties to celebrate the Shimgostav festival. The court held that while a dispute existed regarding temple key handover between the families, deciding substantive rights to perform rituals fell outside the magistrate's jurisdiction under Sections 163-164 of the BNSS, and the parties must pursue appropriate legal remedies separately for such claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts