STATE vs Vinod Kumar Advocate - Sh. Mandroop Singh — 2392/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498A,406. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 24th March 2026.

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJJH020044482023

Case disposed

Filing Number

4418/2023

Filing Date

02-11-2023

Registration No

2392/2023

Registration Date

02-11-2023

Court

CJM ACJM JM Jhunjhunu District HQ

Judge

5-ACJM

Decision Date

24th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

79

Police Station

Mahila Police Thana Jhunjhunu

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 498A,406

Petitioner(s)

STATE

Adv. APO

Respondent(s)

Vinod Kumar Advocate - Sh. Mandroop Singh

Hearing History

Judge: 5-ACJM

24-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

21-02-2026

Prosecution Evidence

13-02-2026

Prosecution Evidence

10-11-2025

Service of Summons/bailable warrant

Final Orders / Judgements

24-03-2026
Judgement

Case Summary: State v. Vinod Kumar (2392/2023) Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu acquitted defendant Vinod Kumar of dowry harassment charges under IPC Section 498A (cruelty by husband/in-laws) on 24.03.2026, finding insufficient evidence. He was previously acquitted under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) following a settlement between parties. Key Reasoning: All three prosecution witnesses, including the complainant wife Savita herself, contradicted the dowry allegations during examination. The complainant admitted in court that the accused never demanded dowry or harassed her, contradicting her own police complaint. Finding the witnesses hostile/unreliable and lacking substantive evidence beyond doubt, the court granted the accused the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Vinod Kumar (2392/2023) Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu acquitted defendant Vinod Kumar of dowry harassment charges under IPC Section 498A (cruelty by husband/in-laws) on 24.03.2026, finding insufficient evidence. He was previously acquitted under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) following a settlement between parties. Key Reasoning: All three prosecution witnesses, including the complainant wife Savita herself, contradicted the dowry allegations during examination. The complainant admitted in court that the accused never demanded dowry or harassed her, contradicting her own police complaint. Finding the witnesses hostile/unreliable and lacking substantive evidence beyond doubt, the court granted the accused the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CJM ACJM JM Jhunjhunu District HQ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case