State vs Rajabai Shivaji Bhosle Advocate - Patil Nitin Tanaji — 1400047/2013
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 471. Status: Charge. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHSO140007702013
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Date
08-02-2013
Registration No
1400047/2013
Registration Date
08-02-2013
Court
Junior Magistrate First Class , Barshi
Judge
2-Jt CJJD JMFC
FIR Details
FIR Number
6
Police Station
Vairag Police Station
Year
2012
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Respondent(s)
Rajabai Shivaji Bhosle Advocate - Patil Nitin Tanaji
Subhash Shivaji Bhosle
Adv. Patil Nitin Tanaji
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt CJJD JMFC
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Charge |
| 13-03-2026 | Charge |
| 11-02-2026 | Charge |
| 02-02-2026 | Charge |
| 21-01-2026 | Charge |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State v. Rajabai Bhosale & Ors. (R.C.C. No.47/2013) Outcome: Discharge application rejected; charges upheld. The court rejected the accused's Section 239 CrPC application for discharge from charges under IPC Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 471 & 34. The court found sufficient grounds to proceed, determining the accused—who were not legal trustees of Mahatma Fule Pratishthan Trust—created false letterheads and stamps to fraudulently suspend/terminate the informant (school headmaster). Defacto doctrine and management regulations could not protect unauthorized acts lacking court order or documented necessity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Rajabai Bhosale & Ors. (R.C.C. No.47/2013) Outcome: Discharge application rejected; charges upheld. The court rejected the accused's Section 239 CrPC application for discharge from charges under IPC Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 471 & 34. The court found sufficient grounds to proceed, determining the accused—who were not legal trustees of Mahatma Fule Pratishthan Trust—created false letterheads and stamps to fraudulently suspend/terminate the informant (school headmaster). Defacto doctrine and management regulations could not protect unauthorized acts lacking court order or documented necessity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts