GULAFSA vs STATE AND ANR — 572/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 02nd April 2026.

Cr Rev - CRIMINAL REVISION

CNR: DLST010197052025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

01-12-2025

Filing Number

5438/2025

Filing Date

02-12-2025

Registration No

572/2025

Registration Date

03-12-2025

Court

District and Sessions Judge, South , Saket

Judge

6-Additional Sessions Judge-02

Decision Date

02nd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438

Petitioner(s)

GULAFSA

Adv. Mukesh Kumar

Respondent(s)

STATE AND ANR

Hearing History

Judge: 6-Additional Sessions Judge-02

02-04-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

ORDER (Criminal)

17-02-2026

Arguments (Criminal)

28-01-2026

Misc./ Appearance (Criminal)

03-01-2026

Misc./ Appearance (Criminal)

Final Orders / Judgements

02-04-2026
COPY OF ORDER
02-04-2026
COPY OF ORDER

Case Summary: 572/2025 - Gulafsa v. State The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed Gulafsa's criminal revision petition challenging the trial court's order correcting her name from "Gulfama" to "Gulafsa" in the chargesheet. The court held that the name correction was merely a clerical/typographical error that did not affect the substance of proceedings, and found no illegality or irregularity in the magistrate's earlier cognizance order in FIR 288/23. The court ruled that Gulafsa's contentions regarding merits—absence of specific allegations, lack of independent evidence, and separate residence—are matters for trial stage, not revisional jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

03-12-2025
COPY OF ORDER
03-01-2026
COPY OF ORDER
28-01-2026
COPY OF ORDER
17-02-2026
COPY OF ORDER
13-03-2026
COPY OF ORDER
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 572/2025 - Gulafsa v. State The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed Gulafsa's criminal revision petition challenging the trial court's order correcting her name from "Gulfama" to "Gulafsa" in the chargesheet. The court held that the name correction was merely a clerical/typographical error that did not affect the substance of proceedings, and found no illegality or irregularity in the magistrate's earlier cognizance order in FIR 288/23. The court ruled that Gulafsa's contentions regarding merits—absence of specific allegations, lack of independent evidence, and separate residence—are matters for trial stage, not revisional jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Judge, South , Saket All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case