Nitin Mahadev Pawaskar vs Raghunath Yashwant Walawalkar — 82/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 120,405,406,463,464,465,468,471,34. Status: Stayed by District Court. Next hearing: 12th August 2026.

Stayed by District Court Next hearing 12-Aug-2026 this date has passed

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHSI040005452023

e-Filing Number

05-08-2023

Filing Number

439/2023

Filing Date

07-Aug-2023

Registration No

82/2023

Registration Date

07-Aug-2023

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Kudal

Judge

1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

Last updated 01-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 120,405,406,463,464,465,468,471,34
Code of Criminal Procedure Section 190

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Nitin Mahadev Pawaskar

    Adv. DHURI TUKARAM

  2. 2.Dattaguru Mohan Shirsat

    Adv. DHURI TUKARAM ARJUN

  3. 3.Mahesh Vasudev Shirsat

    Adv. DHURI TUKARAM ARJUN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Raghunath Yashwant Walawalkar

Case History

  1. 12-Aug-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  4. 08-Jan-2026

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  5. 12-Nov-2025

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  6. 22-Sep-2025

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  7. 19-Jul-2025

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  8. 02-Jun-2025

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  9. 28-Apr-2025

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  10. 10-Mar-2025

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  11. 04-Jan-2025

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  12. 22-Nov-2024

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  13. 05-Oct-2024

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  14. 09-Aug-2024

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  15. 02-Jul-2024

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  16. 05-Jun-2024

    Stayed by District Court

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  17. 25-Apr-2024

    Stayed by District Court

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  18. 27-Mar-2024

    Verification

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  19. 30-Jan-2024

    Verification

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  20. 07-Dec-2023

    Verification

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  21. 30-Oct-2023

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: R.C.C. No. 82/2023 The petition was rejected. Petitioners alleged that flat owners in Sateri Complex conspired to create false documents and forged signatures to fraudulently register a society with the Deputy Registrar. The court found that mandatory procedural requirements under Section 154(3) CrPC were not satisfied, as petitioners failed to escalate the complaint to the Superintendent of Police after police refused to register the case. Additionally, on merits, the court determined that registration of offence would constitute abuse of process given the documentary nature of evidence and the incident's age. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  22. 30-Oct-2023

    Verification

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  23. 04-Oct-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  24. 08-Sep-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c., Kudal

  25. 07-Aug-2023

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  26. 07-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 07-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 82/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.C. No. 82/2023 The petition was rejected. Petitioners alleged that flat owners in Sateri Complex conspired to create false documents and forged signatures to fraudulently register a society with the Deputy Registrar. The court found that mandatory procedural requirements under Section 154(3) CrPC were not satisfied, as petitioners failed to escalate the complaint to the Superintendent of Police after police refused to register the case. Additionally, on merits, the court determined that registration of offence would constitute abuse of process given the documentary nature of evidence and the incident's age. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case