THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs MAHENDRABHAI BHARATBHAI PARMAR Advocate - J H KADRI — 751/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 85, 115(2), 352, 54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH050008582025
Filing Number
751/2025
Filing Date
18-03-2025
Registration No
751/2025
Registration Date
18-03-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, VAGRA
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
18
Police Station
MAHILA POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondent(s)
MAHENDRABHAI BHARATBHAI PARMAR Advocate - J H KADRI
NAYNABEN WD/O BHARATBHAI PARMAR
Adv. J H KADRI
BHAVNABEN WD/O YUVRAJSINH SOLANKI
Adv. S R BHATTI
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 20-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 29-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 24-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 751/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Mahendrabhai Bharatbhai Parmar, Naynaben, and Bhavnaben Yuvrajsinh Solanki) under BNS sections 89, 115(2), 352, 54, and Dowry Prohibition Act section 4, finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations of domestic violence, harassment, and dowry demands. The complainant's testimony during cross-examination contradicted her original complaint, with the victim admitting she had reconciled with her husband and in-laws, was living peacefully with them, and denied suffering any physical or mental cruelty—thereby destroying the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 751/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Mahendrabhai Bharatbhai Parmar, Naynaben, and Bhavnaben Yuvrajsinh Solanki) under BNS sections 89, 115(2), 352, 54, and Dowry Prohibition Act section 4, finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations of domestic violence, harassment, and dowry demands. The complainant's testimony during cross-examination contradicted her original complaint, with the victim admitting she had reconciled with her husband and in-laws, was living peacefully with them, and denied suffering any physical or mental cruelty—thereby destroying the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts