GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs KISHANBHAI PRAHLADBHAI CHAUHAN Advocate - K P KHANDELWAL — 308/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498(A),323,294(B),506(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK090004142024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

308/2024

Filing Date

26-02-2024

Registration No

308/2024

Registration Date

26-02-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHANERA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11195036240032

Police Station

PANTHAWADA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 498(A),323,294(B),506(2)
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 Section 3,7,

Petitioner(s)

GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

KISHANBHAI PRAHLADBHAI CHAUHAN Advocate - K P KHANDELWAL

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

10-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

09-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

29-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

12-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary The Dhanera First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused (Kishnbhai Prahlad Bhai Chauhan) of charges under IPC sections 498(A), 323, 294(b), 506(2), and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 7, finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations of physical abuse, mental harassment, dowry demands, and death threats beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish its case despite presenting the complainant and her parents as witnesses, as their testimonies lacked corroborating evidence and contradicted the accused's cross-examination statements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Dhanera First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused (Kishnbhai Prahlad Bhai Chauhan) of charges under IPC sections 498(A), 323, 294(b), 506(2), and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 7, finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations of physical abuse, mental harassment, dowry demands, and death threats beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish its case despite presenting the complainant and her parents as witnesses, as their testimonies lacked corroborating evidence and contradicted the accused's cross-examination statements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DHANERA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case