The State of Maharashtra vs shivaji popat Jagtap etc. Advocate - Veer Kamalakar Vishwanath — 199/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 326,324,323,504,506,143,147,149,269,188. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 05th May 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHSO160013922020
Filing Number
1140/2020
Filing Date
28-09-2020
Registration No
199/2020
Registration Date
12-10-2020
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Karmala
Judge
2-JT. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. KARMALA
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
466
Police Station
Karmala Police Station
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
shivaji popat Jagtap etc. Advocate - Veer Kamalakar Vishwanath
keshav shivaji Jagtap
onkar shivaji Jagtap
Laxmi shivaji Jagtap
Nutan shivaji Jagtap
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JT. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. KARMALA
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 29-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Popat Jagtap (Case 199/2020) The court acquitted all five defendants of charges under IPC sections 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, and 149, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The key witness (complainant) did not cooperate with the prosecution, and the court found insufficient evidence to establish the allegations of unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation, and grievous hurt that arose from a land dispute on April 27, 2020. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Popat Jagtap (Case 199/2020) The court acquitted all five defendants of charges under IPC sections 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, and 149, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The key witness (complainant) did not cooperate with the prosecution, and the court found insufficient evidence to establish the allegations of unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation, and grievous hurt that arose from a land dispute on April 27, 2020. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts