Government of Gujarat vs CHETAN URFE VIPUL VINUJI THAKOR Advocate - P V SOLANKI — 448/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 316(2),318(4),61(2),54,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH040005472025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
448/2025
Filing Date
28-03-2025
Registration No
448/2025
Registration Date
28-03-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, MATAR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11204033240184
Police Station
LIMBASI POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
CHETAN URFE VIPUL VINUJI THAKOR Advocate - P V SOLANKI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 23-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 16-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Chetan Urfe Vipul Vinuji Thakor, of charges under IPC Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2), and 54 (criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy) due to lack of reliable evidence, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while the defendant was arrested on allegations of extorting ₹2 lakh initially and promising to return ₹6 lakh later but never returning the money, the complainant and defense witnesses testified that an out-of-court settlement had been reached, contradicting the prosecution's narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Chetan Urfe Vipul Vinuji Thakor, of charges under IPC Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2), and 54 (criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy) due to lack of reliable evidence, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while the defendant was arrested on allegations of extorting ₹2 lakh initially and promising to return ₹6 lakh later but never returning the money, the complainant and defense witnesses testified that an out-of-court settlement had been reached, contradicting the prosecution's narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts