The State of Maharashtra vs Chandrakant Maruti Mote Advocate - Mane Dhananjay. A. — 268/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,324,504,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th March 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHSO010023602024
Filing Number
1584/2024
Filing Date
30-Aug-2024
Registration No
268/2024
Registration Date
03-Sep-2024
Court
District and Session Court , Solapur
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
13-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 03-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
349
Police Station
Mohol
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.The State of Maharashtra
Adv. DGP P.M. Rajput
Respondent(s)
-
1.Chandrakant Maruti Mote Advocate - Mane Dhananjay. A.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Summary of Case 268/2024 Chandrakant Maruti Mote was acquitted of all charges including assault (IPC §323), criminal intimidation (IPC §504), and atrocities against scheduled caste (SC/ST Act §3(1)(r)(s) & §3(2)(va)). The Special Judge found serious discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding exact words allegedly uttered by the accused and noted a suspicious 12-hour delay in FIR filing, suggesting the case was filed as retaliation after the accused filed his own FIR. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Judgment
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
05-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
04-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
28-Jan-2026
Arguments
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
19-Jan-2026
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
13-Jan-2026
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
09-Jan-2026
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
01-Jan-2026
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
17-Dec-2025
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
04-Dec-2025
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
20-Nov-2025
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
13-Nov-2025
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
29-Oct-2025
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
09-Oct-2025
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
18-Sep-2025
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
20-Aug-2025
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
23-Jul-2025
Hearing
District Judge - 4 and Additional Session Judge
-
18-Jun-2025
Formal Hearing
District Judge - 4 and Additional Session Judge
-
11-Apr-2025
Formal Hearing
District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge
-
06-Feb-2025
Filing of Vakilpatra
District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge
-
20-Dec-2024
Awaiting Summons
District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge
-
25-Nov-2024
Awaiting Summons
District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge
-
07-Oct-2024
Awaiting Summons
District Judge - 4 and Additional Session Judge
-
24-Sep-2024
First Order
District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge
-
10-Sep-2024
First Order
District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge
-
03-Sep-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Aug-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 268/2024
Summary of Case 268/2024 Chandrakant Maruti Mote was acquitted of all charges including assault (IPC §323), criminal intimidation (IPC §504), and atrocities against scheduled caste (SC/ST Act §3(1)(r)(s) & §3(2)(va)). The Special Judge found serious discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding exact words allegedly uttered by the accused and noted a suspicious 12-hour delay in FIR filing, suggesting the case was filed as retaliation after the accused filed his own FIR. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts