THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs TRIKAMBHAI JESINGBHAI PARMAR Advocate - N G VASOYA — 395/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 504,506(2),114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBT040005402021

Case disposed

Filing Number

395/2021

Filing Date

08-03-2021

Registration No

395/2021

Registration Date

08-03-2021

Court

TALUKA COURT, RANPUR

Judge

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

Decision Date

30th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 504,506(2),114
GUJARAT (BOMBAY) POLICE ACT, 1951 Section 135

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

TRIKAMBHAI JESINGBHAI PARMAR Advocate - N G VASOYA

JITUBEN TRIKAMBHAI PARMAR

Hearing History

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

30-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

30-01-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

22-12-2025

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

03-11-2025

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

30-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary Case C.C. NO.395/2021 The Court acquitted both accused under IPC Sections 504, 506(2), 114, and 135 due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused intentionally abused the state officer with words/gestures causing a breach of peace, or that they instigated unlawful assembly with the requisite criminal intent. Witness testimonies were contradictory and lacked specificity regarding the exact abusive language used, and the investigation records did not conclusively prove the accused's culpability beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary Case C.C. NO.395/2021 The Court acquitted both accused under IPC Sections 504, 506(2), 114, and 135 due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused intentionally abused the state officer with words/gestures causing a breach of peace, or that they instigated unlawful assembly with the requisite criminal intent. Witness testimonies were contradictory and lacked specificity regarding the exact abusive language used, and the investigation records did not conclusively prove the accused's culpability beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, RANPUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case