State of Maharashtra vs Shantilal Vishvanath Salave — 1310/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65e. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHSO110025172025

Filing Number

1839/2025

Filing Date

03-Jul-2025

Registration No

1310/2025

Registration Date

11-Jul-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Malshiras

Judge

3-Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

270

Police Station

Malshiras

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65e

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. App

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shantilal Vishvanath Salave

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: State v. Shantilal Vishvanath Salave (1310/2025) The court suspended proceedings under Section 258 CrPC (Section 281 BNSS) in a Maharashtra Prohibition Act violation case because the accused remained absent since inception and no Complaint Assessment report was filed, making conviction unlikely and normal trial proceedings impossible. The prosecution retained liberty to revive proceedings upon arresting or securing the accused's presence with justifiable grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class

  4. 30-Oct-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class

  5. 02-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 03-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1310/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Shantilal Vishvanath Salave (1310/2025) The court suspended proceedings under Section 258 CrPC (Section 281 BNSS) in a Maharashtra Prohibition Act violation case because the accused remained absent since inception and no Complaint Assessment report was filed, making conviction unlikely and normal trial proceedings impossible. The prosecution retained liberty to revive proceedings upon arresting or securing the accused's presence with justifiable grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case