STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAHULBHAI CHANDRASINGBHAI VASAVA Advocate - S R VASAVA — 22/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),352,351(2)(3),54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSR100000232025

Filing Number

22/2025

Filing Date

09-Jan-2025

Registration No

22/2025

Registration Date

09-Jan-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, UMARPADA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

347

Police Station

UMARPADA POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),352,351(2)(3),54

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAHULBHAI CHANDRASINGBHAI VASAVA Advocate - S R VASAVA

  2. 2.CHANDRASINGBHAI RUPAJIBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Umarpada, Surat acquitted both defendants of charges under IPC Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), and 54, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the complainant's testimony lacked cogency and quality, witnesses were largely related to the complainant, and critical inconsistencies undermined the prosecution's case, particularly regarding delayed FIR registration without satisfactory explanation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 13-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 31-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 16-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 02-Jan-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 24-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 12-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 25-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 27-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 22-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 08-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 25-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 07-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 21-Jul-2025

    Objection

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 14-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 16-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 23-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 02-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 08-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 11-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 12-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 31-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 09-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 22/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Umarpada, Surat acquitted both defendants of charges under IPC Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), and 54, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the complainant's testimony lacked cogency and quality, witnesses were largely related to the complainant, and critical inconsistencies undermined the prosecution's case, particularly regarding delayed FIR registration without satisfactory explanation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case