Government of Gujarat vs DINESHKUMAR SHANTILAL PARMAR Advocate - F N MIRZA — 244/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 285. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH050004692026

Filing Number

244/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

244/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KAPADVANJ

Judge

3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

528

Police Station

KAPADWANJ TOWN POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 285
Gujarat (Bombay) Police Act, 1951 Section 102,117

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DINESHKUMAR SHANTILAL PARMAR Advocate - F N MIRZA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court found the accused Dineshkumar Shantilal Parmar guilty under IPC Sections 285, 102, and 117, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500 with 5 days simple imprisonment in default of payment. The court considered the accused's voluntary confession, poor socioeconomic circumstances, and remorse as mitigating factors while imposing minimum punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 244/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused Dineshkumar Shantilal Parmar guilty under IPC Sections 285, 102, and 117, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500 with 5 days simple imprisonment in default of payment. The court considered the accused's voluntary confession, poor socioeconomic circumstances, and remorse as mitigating factors while imposing minimum punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case