VIMLESH vs UNKNOWN — 1/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 10th March 2026.
Final Report - FR
CNR: RJBD120000812025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
81/2025
Filing Date
10-01-2025
Registration No
1/2025
Registration Date
10-01-2025
Court
ACJM JM Hindoli Taluka Criminal Cases
Judge
2-ACJM
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
FIR Details
FIR Number
99
Police Station
Excise Thana Nainwan
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VIMLESH
Adv. Jagdish Prasad Gurjar
Respondent(s)
UNKNOWN
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ACJM
Disposed
Cognizance / issuance of Process/ Service
Cognizance / issuance of Process/ Service
Cognizance / issuance of Process/ Service
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 05-03-2026 | Cognizance / issuance of Process/ Service | |
| 31-01-2026 | Cognizance / issuance of Process/ Service | |
| 10-11-2025 | Cognizance / issuance of Process/ Service | |
| 17-10-2025 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The court rejected the complainant's protest petition against an FIR for rash and negligent driving causing injuries (IPC Sections 279, 337, 338). While evidence established that the complainant and her family suffered injuries in a motorcycle accident, the court found insufficient direct evidence identifying the hit-and-run vehicle or its driver, as the complainant could only provide the motorcycle number 8-10 days after the incident without corroborating witness testimony. Additionally, the court dismissed several procedural applications filed by both parties regarding improper document filing and non-appearance issues. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Summary The court rejected the complainant's protest petition against an FIR for rash and negligent driving causing injuries (IPC Sections 279, 337, 338). While evidence established that the complainant and her family suffered injuries in a motorcycle accident, the court found insufficient direct evidence identifying the hit-and-run vehicle or its driver, as the complainant could only provide the motorcycle number 8-10 days after the incident without corroborating witness testimony. Additionally, the court dismissed several procedural applications filed by both parties regarding improper document filing and non-appearance issues. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts