State of Maharashtra vs Naushad Alies Noushadmiya Bapusaheb Mulani and 1 Advocate - Sargar Sachin Shivaji — 142/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 118(1),115(2),351(2),351(3),352,3(5). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 17th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHSO200010122025
e-Filing Number
07-05-2025
Filing Number
761/2025
Filing Date
16-May-2025
Registration No
142/2025
Registration Date
16-May-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Sangola
Judge
6-C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 03-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
181
Police Station
Sangola Police Station.
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
-
1.Naushad Alies Noushadmiya Bapusaheb Mulani and 1 Advocate - Sargar Sachin Shivaji
-
2.Ulfat Noushad Alies Noushadmiya Mulani
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Summary: Case 142/2025 Court Decision: The First Class Magistrate, Sangola acquitted both accused Naushad (47) and Ulfat (42) of all charges under IPC sections 118(1), 115(2), 351(2)(3), 352, and 3(5). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of criminal intimidation and assault beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient corroborating evidence and a settlement reached between the parties outside court, which undermined the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.
-
13-Mar-2026
Arguments
C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.
-
12-Mar-2026
Evidence
C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.
-
11-Feb-2026
Evidence
C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.
-
17-Nov-2025
Awaiting Summons
C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.
-
27-May-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-May-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 142/2025
Summary: Case 142/2025 Court Decision: The First Class Magistrate, Sangola acquitted both accused Naushad (47) and Ulfat (42) of all charges under IPC sections 118(1), 115(2), 351(2)(3), 352, and 3(5). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of criminal intimidation and assault beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient corroborating evidence and a settlement reached between the parties outside court, which undermined the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts