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
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
Petitioner(s)
GULAFSA
Adv. Mukesh Kumar
Respondent(s)
STATE AND ANR
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Additional Sessions Judge-02
Disposed
ORDER (Criminal)
Arguments (Criminal)
Misc./ Appearance (Criminal)
Misc./ Appearance (Criminal)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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
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
Explore other courts