State vs RAJESH MEENA Advocate - MOHD. SHAREEF — 226/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457,323,354. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJBD140004402022
Filing Number
440/2022
Filing Date
03-08-2022
Registration No
226/2022
Registration Date
06-08-2022
Court
JM Indergarh Taluka
Judge
1-JM
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. APO
Respondent(s)
RAJESH MEENA Advocate - MOHD. SHAREEF
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JM
Disposed
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 23-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 07-03-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Reg.Cri.Case/226/2022 Decision Date: 27.03.2026 Court: Judicial Magistrate, Indragarh, Buundi District, Rajasthan Accused: Rajesh Meena (represented by Advocate Mohd. Shareef) Charges: IPC Sections 354 (outraging modesty), 323 (causing hurt), and 457 (lurking house-trespass) Verdict: The court acquitted the accused Rajesh Meena of all charges, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's evidence was insufficient, particularly because the key witness (victim) did not testify in court, and the investigating officer's account conflicted with documentary evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Reg.Cri.Case/226/2022 Decision Date: 27.03.2026 Court: Judicial Magistrate, Indragarh, Buundi District, Rajasthan Accused: Rajesh Meena (represented by Advocate Mohd. Shareef) Charges: IPC Sections 354 (outraging modesty), 323 (causing hurt), and 457 (lurking house-trespass) Verdict: The court acquitted the accused Rajesh Meena of all charges, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's evidence was insufficient, particularly because the key witness (victim) did not testify in court, and the investigating officer's account conflicted with documentary evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts