Government of Gujarat vs SOHANSING PRABHATSING Advocate - N S MAJIRANA — 3312/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 384,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK040047732024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

3312/2024

Filing Date

04-09-2024

Registration No

3312/2024

Registration Date

04-09-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEESA

Judge

12-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

707

Police Station

DEESA RURAL POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 384,
GUJARAT PUBLIC MONEYS (RECOVERY OF DUES) ACT, 1979 Section 42(A),42(D),40

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

SOHANSING PRABHATSING Advocate - N S MAJIRANA

Hearing History

Judge: 12-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

23-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

25-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

29-01-2026

PLEA

30-12-2025

PLEA

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Court Decision Summary The Dispur Magistrate Court acquitted the accused (Sohansinh Prabhatsih Solanki) of charges under IPC Section 384 and Gujarat Money Lenders Act Sections 42(a), 42(d), and 40. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had caused mental distress to the complainant through extortion or interest harassment, as the complainant's own witness testimony contradicted the extortion allegations and confirmed voluntary loan transactions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Dispur Magistrate Court acquitted the accused (Sohansinh Prabhatsih Solanki) of charges under IPC Section 384 and Gujarat Money Lenders Act Sections 42(a), 42(d), and 40. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had caused mental distress to the complainant through extortion or interest harassment, as the complainant's own witness testimony contradicted the extortion allegations and confirmed voluntary loan transactions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DEESA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case