State of Maharashtra vs Shubham Manik Kadam — 44/2026

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 84. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHSN030003852026

Filing Number

385/2026

Filing Date

22-Jan-2026

Registration No

44/2026

Registration Date

23-Jan-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli

Judge

3-IIIrd Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--REJECTED

Last updated 05-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

134

Police Station

SANGLI CITY POLICE STATION SANGLI

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 84

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. Dadape Aditi Rajesh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shubham Manik Kadam

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary The court granted a petition to quash criminal proceedings (Criminal Petition 44/2026) against the accused under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 84. The court found that there was an unreasonable two-year delay in filing the chargesheet despite investigation being completed by March 12, 2023, and this delay could not be justified by the investigating officer's reasons. The court ruled that since the chargesheet was not filed within the statutory period required under CrPC Section 468(2) for offenses carrying only fine punishment, the petition to quash the proceedings was admitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    IIIrd Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  4. 12-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 22-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 44/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court granted a petition to quash criminal proceedings (Criminal Petition 44/2026) against the accused under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 84. The court found that there was an unreasonable two-year delay in filing the chargesheet despite investigation being completed by March 12, 2023, and this delay could not be justified by the investigating officer's reasons. The court ruled that since the chargesheet was not filed within the statutory period required under CrPC Section 468(2) for offenses carrying only fine punishment, the petition to quash the proceedings was admitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case