State vs MANGAL Advocate - Mahaveer Prasad Gurjar — 191/2017

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498A. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJAJ140003612017

Filing Number

360/2017

Filing Date

25-Feb-2017

Registration No

191/2017

Registration Date

25-Feb-2017

Court

ACJM JM Kekri Taluka Criminal

Judge

4-Jm

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 02-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

660

Police Station

Kekri

Year

2016

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 498A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANGAL Advocate - Mahaveer Prasad Gurjar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Judgement/OrderView PDF

    Court Summary The court acquitted defendant Mangal of charges under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty to wife), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found that while the complainant alleged demands for ₹4 lakhs dowry and physical abuse, the prosecution's witnesses provided vague, contradictory statements lacking specific dates, times, or places of incidents, failing to meet the legal threshold for cruelty charges. The court cited the Supreme Court's principle that ambiguous allegations without material particulars cannot establish criminal offenses beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jm

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Jm

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Jm

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Jm

  7. 05-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  8. 24-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  9. 12-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  10. 05-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  11. 04-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  12. 27-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  13. 12-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  14. 23-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  15. 09-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  16. 16-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  17. 07-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  18. 24-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  19. 17-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  20. 04-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  21. 17-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  22. 07-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  23. 10-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  24. 24-Aug-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  25. 25-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  26. 23-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  27. 28-Sep-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  28. 27-Apr-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  29. 09-Feb-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  30. 15-Sep-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  31. 03-Feb-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  32. 08-Jul-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  33. 22-Apr-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  34. 23-Sep-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  35. 04-May-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm 1

  36. 25-Mar-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm 1

  37. 06-Dec-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm 1

  38. 05-Sep-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  39. 23-Aug-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  40. 18-May-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm 1

  41. 05-Feb-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm 1

  42. 01-Nov-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm 1

  43. 16-Aug-2017

    Evidence

    Acjm 1

  44. 26-May-2017

    Evidence

    Acjm 1

  45. 18-Apr-2017

    Charge

    Acjm 1

  46. 28-Mar-2017

    Charge

    Acjm 1

  47. 24-Mar-2017

    Charge

    Acjm 1

  48. 01-Mar-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  49. 25-Feb-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. 191/2017

casestatus.in Summary

Court Summary The court acquitted defendant Mangal of charges under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty to wife), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found that while the complainant alleged demands for ₹4 lakhs dowry and physical abuse, the prosecution's witnesses provided vague, contradictory statements lacking specific dates, times, or places of incidents, failing to meet the legal threshold for cruelty charges. The court cited the Supreme Court's principle that ambiguous allegations without material particulars cannot establish criminal offenses beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case