The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Devgad through Sanjana Rajendra vs Aanand Kashinath Tamhankar Advocate - MARATHE KAUSTUBH KAMALAKAR — 17/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 324,323,452,504,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 17th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHSI090001192022
Filing Number
76/2022
Filing Date
28-03-2022
Registration No
17/2022
Registration Date
28-03-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division ,Devgad
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
16
Police Station
Police Station Deogad
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Devgad through Sanjana Rajendra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Aanand Kashinath Tamhankar Advocate - MARATHE KAUSTUBH KAMALAKAR
Arun Kashiram Tamhankar
Sarita Kashinath Tamhankar
Kashinath Dhondu Tamhankar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 31-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate acquitted all four accused (Anand, Arun, Sarita, and Kashinath Tamhankar) of charges under IPC Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, and 506 (assault, house trespass, insult, and criminal intimidation). The court found the prosecution's evidence—based solely on family member testimony with contradictory accounts of the incident location, a broken chain of custody for seized weapons, and absence of medical evidence for alleged injuries—insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate acquitted all four accused (Anand, Arun, Sarita, and Kashinath Tamhankar) of charges under IPC Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, and 506 (assault, house trespass, insult, and criminal intimidation). The court found the prosecution's evidence—based solely on family member testimony with contradictory accounts of the incident location, a broken chain of custody for seized weapons, and absence of medical evidence for alleged injuries—insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts