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
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
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
Disposed
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts