State of Maharashtra Through P S O PS Shirpur vs Shrikant Vasanta Khillare Advocate - Adv. S.G. Sawale — 70/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 452,323,504,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th June 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHWS100005692023
Filing Number
487/2023
Filing Date
31-Mar-2023
Registration No
70/2023
Registration Date
31-Mar-2023
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division, Malegaon
Judge
1-CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
Decision Date
11-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
0273
Police Station
SHIRPUR
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Through P S O PS (Police Station) Shirpur
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Shrikant Vasanta Khillare Advocate - Adv. S.G. Sawale
-
2.Panchafula Vasanta Khillare
-
3.Mangal Santosh Padghan
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Jun-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: Case 70/2023 Court Decision: All three accused—Shrikant Vasanta Khillare, Panchafula Vasanta Khillare, and Mangal Santosh Padghan—were acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 with Section 34 (criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, insult, and criminal threats by common intention). Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The three witnesses (complainant and two alleged victims) provided inconsistent testimony, claiming they had no knowledge of when, where, or what exactly occurred. None corroborated the prosecution's narrative of trespassing and assault. The court noted the witnesses provided no substantive support to the prosecution and their cross-examination yielded only denials. Scene-of-crime evidence and other documentation could not independently prove the alleged offenses, and an out-of-court settlement was recorded between parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Jun-2026
Disposed
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
26-May-2026
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
16-Apr-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
16-Mar-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
17-Feb-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
13-Jan-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
09-Dec-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
04-Nov-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
30-Sep-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
26-Aug-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
22-Jul-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
17-Jun-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
22-Apr-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
25-Mar-2025
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
25-Feb-2025
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
28-Jan-2025
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
31-Dec-2024
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
26-Nov-2024
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
15-Oct-2024
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
26-Aug-2024
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
16-Jul-2024
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
12-Jun-2024
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
21-Mar-2024
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
28-Dec-2023
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
21-Nov-2023
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
03-Oct-2023
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
10-Aug-2023
Charge
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
07-Jun-2023
Awaiting Summons
CIVIL Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malegaon
-
31-Mar-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
31-Mar-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 70/2023
Case Summary: Case 70/2023 Court Decision: All three accused—Shrikant Vasanta Khillare, Panchafula Vasanta Khillare, and Mangal Santosh Padghan—were acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 with Section 34 (criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, insult, and criminal threats by common intention). Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The three witnesses (complainant and two alleged victims) provided inconsistent testimony, claiming they had no knowledge of when, where, or what exactly occurred. None corroborated the prosecution's narrative of trespassing and assault. The court noted the witnesses provided no substantive support to the prosecution and their cross-examination yielded only denials. Scene-of-crime evidence and other documentation could not independently prove the alleged offenses, and an out-of-court settlement was recorded between parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts