Government of Gujarat vs JENTIBHAI RAMABHAI DAMOR Advocate - J P RANA — 662/2018

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 465,467,468,471,114,. Status: PROCESS TO ACCUSED. Next hearing: 20th May 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK120007602018

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Next Hearing

20th May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

662/2018

Filing Date

28-11-2018

Registration No

662/2018

Registration Date

28-11-2018

Court

TALUKA COURT, AMIRGADH

Judge

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

FIR Details

FIR Number

103

Police Station

AMIRGADH POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2015

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 465,467,468,471,114,

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

JENTIBHAI RAMABHAI DAMOR Advocate - J P RANA

RAKESHBHAI HARFULBHAI MINA

RAMESHCHANDRA AMARATLAL JOSHI(Name quashed from charge-sheet/complaint)

Adv. J.R.JOSHI

ANDABHAI RAJABHAI DAMOR(Absconding)

SANKALABHAI KALABHAI BHAGORA(Absconding)

MALIBEN MALABHAI DUNGAICHA

Hearing History

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

21-04-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

09-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

09-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

31-12-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

06-12-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Interim Orders

26-10-2023
ORDER

SUMMARY The discharge application filed by accused no. 3 (notary Rameshchandra Amratlal Joshi) has been granted and the accused is discharged from all charges. The court found that Section 13 of the Notary Act, 1952 was violated—cognizance against a notary for acts committed in his professional capacity can only be taken upon a written complaint from an authorized government officer, not via a police report/chargesheet as occurred here. Since the legal bar to cognizance cannot be overcome, no charge can be framed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The discharge application filed by accused no. 3 (notary Rameshchandra Amratlal Joshi) has been granted and the accused is discharged from all charges. The court found that Section 13 of the Notary Act, 1952 was violated—cognizance against a notary for acts committed in his professional capacity can only be taken upon a written complaint from an authorized government officer, not via a police report/chargesheet as occurred here. Since the legal bar to cognizance cannot be overcome, no charge can be framed. 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

TALUKA COURT, AMIRGADH All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case