G.R.P. Wardha vs Unknown — 946/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379,SummaryA. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Other Misc.Cri.Appln - Other Misc.Criminal Application

CNR: MHWR030091032025

Filing Number

9104/2025

Filing Date

27-Oct-2025

Registration No

946/2025

Registration Date

28-Oct-2025

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate , Wardha

Judge

2-Jt. Cjjd JMFC Wardha.

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

239

Police Station

Excise Officer, Wardha

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 379,SummaryA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.G.R.P. Wardha

    Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Unknown

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha accepted the "A Summary" report filed by Railway Police Station in a theft case (Section 379 IPC) after finding that despite sincere efforts, the stolen property and accused could not be traced and there was no likelihood of finding them in the near future. The court disposed of the case and ordered return of any seized property to its original owner, noting that the informant raised no protest to the closure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jt. Cjjd JMFC Wardha.

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Notice

    Jt. Cjjd JMFC Wardha.

  5. 09-Feb-2026

    Awaiting Notice

    Jt. Cjjd JMFC Wardha.

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Notice

    Jt. Cjjd JMFC Wardha.

  7. 30-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    Jt. Cjjd JMFC Wardha.

  8. 30-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 27-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 946/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha accepted the "A Summary" report filed by Railway Police Station in a theft case (Section 379 IPC) after finding that despite sincere efforts, the stolen property and accused could not be traced and there was no likelihood of finding them in the near future. The court disposed of the case and ordered return of any seized property to its original owner, noting that the informant raised no protest to the closure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case