GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs LAJJABEN AKASHKUMAR PATHAK Advocate - A C PANDYA — 293/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 16th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJPM020004722024

Filing Number

293/2024

Filing Date

03-Feb-2024

Registration No

293/2024

Registration Date

03-Feb-2024

Court

CIVIL COURT GODHRA

Judge

1-Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

16-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

464

Police Station

GODHRA CITY - A DIVISION POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHAL DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 184,187,177

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LAJJABEN AKASHKUMAR PATHAK Advocate - A C PANDYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: C.C. No. 293/2024 Court Decision: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra acquitted the accused Lajjaben Akashkumar Pathak of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 177, 184, 187. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused recklessly drove a two-wheeler causing injuries to the complainant's father, noting the delayed FIR filing, lack of credible eyewitness identification at the accident spot, and insufficient evidence of criminal negligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  8. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  9. 06-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  10. 25-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  11. 13-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  12. 15-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  13. 12-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  14. 23-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  15. 12-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  16. 15-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  17. 18-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  18. 07-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  19. 26-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  20. 08-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  21. 09-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  22. 26-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  23. 21-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  24. 16-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  25. 19-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  26. 02-Mar-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 03-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 293/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.C. No. 293/2024 Court Decision: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra acquitted the accused Lajjaben Akashkumar Pathak of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 177, 184, 187. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused recklessly drove a two-wheeler causing injuries to the complainant's father, noting the delayed FIR filing, lack of credible eyewitness identification at the accident spot, and insufficient evidence of criminal negligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case