State of Maharashtra Through Sangmeshwar Police Station vs Anand Yashwant Vengurlekar Advocate - Jadhav M M — 50/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,420. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHRT080003452017
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
294/2017
Filing Date
29-06-2017
Registration No
50/2017
Registration Date
29-06-2017
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division , Deorukh
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Deorukh
FIR Details
FIR Number
110
Police Station
Sangmeshwar Police Station
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through Sangmeshwar Police Station
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Anand Yashwant Vengurlekar Advocate - Jadhav M M
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Deorukh
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 05-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 12-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 12-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No.: Criminal Case 50/2017 Court: Judicial Magistrate, Deorukh, Ratnagiri District Date of Order: 05/02/2026 Outcome: The court acquitted the accused (petition dismissed) after finding insufficient evidence. The complainant failed to provide credible documentary proof of the alleged financial transaction of ₹15,67,200, and the investigation revealed contradictions and lack of corroborating evidence regarding the claim that the accused had obtained money by fraudulent means. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No.: Criminal Case 50/2017 Court: Judicial Magistrate, Deorukh, Ratnagiri District Date of Order: 05/02/2026 Outcome: The court acquitted the accused (petition dismissed) after finding insufficient evidence. The complainant failed to provide credible documentary proof of the alleged financial transaction of ₹15,67,200, and the investigation revealed contradictions and lack of corroborating evidence regarding the claim that the accused had obtained money by fraudulent means. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts