Rajendra Sonaji Tuljapure vs Ramesh Vitthal Mule — 86/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 175(3). Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 12th May 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHWS090011382025
e-Filing Number
14-10-2025
Filing Number
1000/2025
Filing Date
15-10-2025
Registration No
86/2025
Registration Date
15-10-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Manora
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Manora
Decision Date
12th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
FIR Details
Police Station
P. S. Manora
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajendra Sonaji Tuljapure
Adv. TAHSEEN AHMAD KHAN AHMADYAR KHAN
Respondent(s)
Ramesh Vitthal Mule
State Of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Manora
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Compliance
Compliance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 08-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 24-03-2026 | Compliance |
| 16-03-2026 | Compliance |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 86/2025 The Judicial Magistrate rejected petitioner Rajendra Sonaji Tuljapure's application seeking investigation into alleged cheating and intimidation by Ramesh Vitthal Mule over an unpaid soybean crop transaction worth ₹1,08,000. The court found no core ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 316(2) and 118(4) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita were disclosed, and held that Section 173(3) cannot be misused as a tool for resolving recovery disputes or personal vendettas. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 86/2025 The Judicial Magistrate rejected petitioner Rajendra Sonaji Tuljapure's application seeking investigation into alleged cheating and intimidation by Ramesh Vitthal Mule over an unpaid soybean crop transaction worth ₹1,08,000. The court found no core ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 316(2) and 118(4) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita were disclosed, and held that Section 173(3) cannot be misused as a tool for resolving recovery disputes or personal vendettas. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts