Government of Gujarat vs Rajeshbhai Kailassinh Advocate - R J GOGDA — 363/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 223,. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 24th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNR060003902026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

363/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

363/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, GARUDESHWAR

Judge

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

Decision Date

24th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

FIR Details

FIR Number

11823014250374

Police Station

KEVADIYA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 223,

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Rajeshbhai Kailassinh Advocate - R J GOGDA

Hearing History

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

24-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

24-03-2026
ORDER

The court held that the Magistrate lacked cognizance to proceed against the accused under BNS Section 223 (defamation of public servants) because Section 215 of BNS mandates that such offences require a written complaint from the competent public servant or their administrative superior. Since no such written complaint was filed by the District Collector (the aggrieved public servant), the court properly refused to take cognizance. The judgment affirms that when offences under Section 223 are intertwined with other offences in the same transaction, they cannot be segregated, and the procedural requirement of Section 215 remains mandatory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court held that the Magistrate lacked cognizance to proceed against the accused under BNS Section 223 (defamation of public servants) because Section 215 of BNS mandates that such offences require a written complaint from the competent public servant or their administrative superior. Since no such written complaint was filed by the District Collector (the aggrieved public servant), the court properly refused to take cognizance. The judgment affirms that when offences under Section 223 are intertwined with other offences in the same transaction, they cannot be segregated, and the procedural requirement of Section 215 remains mandatory. 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, GARUDESHWAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case