State vs Ramchandra etc Advocate - Vijay Pratap Singh Rathore — 2552/2014
Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 07th May 2026.
Cro - Criminal Orginal
CNR: RJBK080000842014
Filing Number
2317/2014
Filing Date
10-02-2014
Registration No
2552/2014
Registration Date
10-02-2014
Court
ACJM JM Nokha Taluka HQ criminal
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
682
Police Station
Nokha Police Station
Year
2013
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. App IInd
Respondent(s)
Ramchandra etc Advocate - Vijay Pratap Singh Rathore
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-05-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 04-05-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 30-04-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 25-04-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Ramchandra & Others (2552/2014) Court's Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted four accused persons (Ramchandra, Premchand, Rakesh, and Pavan Kumar) of charges under IPC Sections 323, 341, 147 read with 149, finding the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical gaps in the investigation, inconsistencies in witness testimony, and the complainant's own admission during cross-examination that he filed the case merely to recover money, significantly undermining the prosecution's credibility and narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Ramchandra & Others (2552/2014) Court's Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted four accused persons (Ramchandra, Premchand, Rakesh, and Pavan Kumar) of charges under IPC Sections 323, 341, 147 read with 149, finding the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical gaps in the investigation, inconsistencies in witness testimony, and the complainant's own admission during cross-examination that he filed the case merely to recover money, significantly undermining the prosecution's credibility and narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts