THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs BATUKBHAI GOVINDBHAI GOSLIYA Advocate - A D VALA, M S SOMANI, M S SOMANIR L KUKADIYA,, M S SOMANIR L KUKADIYA,A S METALIYA,, M S SOMANIR L KUKADIYA,A S METALIYA,R R MER,, M S SOMANIR L KUKADIYA,A S METALIYA,R R MER,R A LIMBADIYA, — 2984/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 504,506(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBT020036712023

Filing Number

2984/2023

Filing Date

25-Jul-2023

Registration No

2984/2023

Registration Date

25-Jul-2023

Court

CIVIL COURT, BOTAD

Judge

3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11190002230537

Police Station

BOTAD TOWN POLICE STATION – BOTAD DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 504,506(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BATUKBHAI GOVINDBHAI GOSLIYA Advocate - A D VALA, M S SOMANI, M S SOMANIR L KUKADIYA,, M S SOMANIR L KUKADIYA,A S METALIYA,, M S SOMANIR L KUKADIYA,A S METALIYA,R R MER,, M S SOMANIR L KUKADIYA,A S METALIYA,R R MER,R A LIMBADIYA,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: THE STATE OF GUJARAT v. BATUKBHAI GOVINDBHAI GOSLIYA (2984/2023) Court Decision The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Botad acquitted the accused Batukbhai Govindbhai Gosliya of charges under IPC Sections 354(D) (stalking), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), and 504 (intentional insult). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt despite presenting witness testimonies from the complainant and family members. Key Reasoning The complainant alleged that the accused had harassed her with abusive language, threats of violence, and circulation of intimate photos/videos while pressuring her to continue a prior relationship. However, the court observed critical inconsistencies: the complainant herself did not mention specific abusive words or threats in her statement; the alleged photo/video circulation claim was mentioned only during examination-in-chief but omitted from the FIR; and witnesses could not corroborate these facts. The court emphasized that since the complainant (victim) failed to support the prosecution's case adequately and witnesses only provided general statements without concrete details, no essential ingredient of the charged offenses was proven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  5. 21-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  6. 23-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  7. 11-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  8. 01-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  9. 12-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  10. 19-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  11. 31-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  12. 19-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  13. 29-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  14. 12-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  15. 30-Jan-2025

    Framing Of Charge

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  16. 10-Jan-2025

    Framing Of Charge

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  17. 19-Dec-2024

    Framing Of Charge

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  18. 06-Dec-2024

    Framing Of Charge

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  19. 11-Nov-2024

    Framing Of Charge

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  20. 07-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  21. 02-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  22. 12-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  23. 08-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  24. 20-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  25. 16-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  26. 05-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  27. 11-Mar-2024

    Process To Accused

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  28. 12-Feb-2024

    Process To Accused

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  29. 25-Nov-2023

    Process To Accused

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  30. 07-Nov-2023

    Process To Accused

    2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  31. 05-Oct-2023

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  32. 06-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 25-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2984/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: THE STATE OF GUJARAT v. BATUKBHAI GOVINDBHAI GOSLIYA (2984/2023) Court Decision The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Botad acquitted the accused Batukbhai Govindbhai Gosliya of charges under IPC Sections 354(D) (stalking), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), and 504 (intentional insult). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt despite presenting witness testimonies from the complainant and family members. Key Reasoning The complainant alleged that the accused had harassed her with abusive language, threats of violence, and circulation of intimate photos/videos while pressuring her to continue a prior relationship. However, the court observed critical inconsistencies: the complainant herself did not mention specific abusive words or threats in her statement; the alleged photo/video circulation claim was mentioned only during examination-in-chief but omitted from the FIR; and witnesses could not corroborate these facts. The court emphasized that since the complainant (victim) failed to support the prosecution's case adequately and witnesses only provided general statements without concrete details, no essential ingredient of the charged offenses was proven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case