THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SIKANDARBHAI FARUKBHAI DULLA Advocate - H P MALVI — 385/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJRJ060005092026

Filing Number

385/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

385/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHORAJI

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11213010260095

Police Station

DHORAJI POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 285

Petitioner(s)

1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

1.SIKANDARBHAI FARUKBHAI DULLA Advocate - H P MALVI

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
14-Mar-2026

JudegementView PDF

Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Dhoraji found the accused, Sikandarbhai Farukbhai Dulla, guilty under IPC Section 285 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter) after he voluntarily pleaded guilty. The court sentenced him to a fine of ₹200 with an alternative imprisonment of 3 days, considering it his first offense, his role as the sole earner of his family, and the assurance provided to the court that he would not repeat such actions in the future. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
14-Mar-2026

Disposed

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
11-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
11-Mar-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 385/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Dhoraji found the accused, Sikandarbhai Farukbhai Dulla, guilty under IPC Section 285 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter) after he voluntarily pleaded guilty. The court sentenced him to a fine of ₹200 with an alternative imprisonment of 3 days, considering it his first offense, his role as the sole earner of his family, and the assurance provided to the court that he would not repeat such actions in the future. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.