State vs Ramchandra etc Advocate - Vijay Pratap Singh Rathore — 2552/2014

Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

Cro - Criminal Orginal

CNR: RJBK080000842014

Filing Number

2317/2014

Filing Date

10-Feb-2014

Registration No

2552/2014

Registration Date

10-Feb-2014

Court

ACJM JM Nokha Taluka HQ criminal

Judge

1-Acjm

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

682

Police Station

Nokha Police Station

Year

2013

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. App IInd

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ramchandra etc Advocate - Vijay Pratap Singh Rathore

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    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.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 05-May-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  5. 04-May-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  6. 30-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  7. 25-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  8. 17-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  9. 13-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  10. 06-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  11. 27-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  12. 18-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  13. 13-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  14. 26-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  15. 17-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  16. 05-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  17. 04-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  18. 06-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  19. 09-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  20. 11-Nov-2025

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  21. 14-Oct-2025

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  22. 08-Sep-2025

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  23. 08-Aug-2025

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  24. 28-Jul-2025

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  25. 16-Jun-2025

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  26. 03-May-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  27. 19-Mar-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  28. 08-Jan-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  29. 16-Nov-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  30. 31-Aug-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  31. 10-Jul-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  32. 29-Jun-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  33. 08-Apr-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  34. 18-Jan-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  35. 18-Sep-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  36. 19-Jul-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  37. 19-Apr-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  38. 20-Feb-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  39. 07-Jan-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  40. 19-Oct-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  41. 15-Sep-2022

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  42. 27-Jul-2022

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  43. 16-Jun-2022

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  44. 13-May-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  45. 14-Mar-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  46. 19-Feb-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  47. 05-Feb-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  48. 28-Jan-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  49. 15-Nov-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  50. 22-Sep-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  51. 18-May-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  52. 14-Jan-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  53. 05-Sep-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  54. 26-May-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  55. 14-Feb-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  56. 22-Oct-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  57. 30-Jul-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  58. 07-Jun-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  59. 02-Feb-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  60. 19-Nov-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  61. 08-Aug-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  62. 14-May-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  63. 16-Feb-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  64. 12-Jan-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  65. 27-Oct-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  66. 25-Aug-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  67. 06-Jul-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  68. 08-Jun-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  69. 06-Apr-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  70. 16-Mar-2017

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  71. 19-Jan-2017

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  72. 06-Oct-2016

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  73. 21-Jul-2016

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  74. 21-Apr-2016

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  75. 25-Feb-2016

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  76. 27-Nov-2015

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  77. 30-Sep-2015

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  78. 22-Jul-2015

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  79. 23-Feb-2015

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  80. 11-Sep-2014

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  81. 02-Jul-2014

    Awaiting Warrant

    Acjm

  82. 24-Feb-2014

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  83. 10-Feb-2014

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2552/2014

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case