State vs RAJINDER Advocate - SH. MAHIPAL DORATA — 118/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 354. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 19th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJJH070002462022
Filing Number
245/2022
Filing Date
24-02-2022
Registration No
118/2022
Registration Date
24-02-2022
Court
ACJM MJM Khetri Taluka HQ
Judge
2-ACJM
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
589
Police Station
KHETRI
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. PP1
Respondent(s)
RAJINDER Advocate - SH. MAHIPAL DORATA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ACJM
Disposed
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. |
| 12-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 12-12-2025 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 20-09-2025 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Rajinder Urfz Monnu (118/2022) Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Rajendra Urfz Monnu of charges under IPC Section 354(d) (stalking) due to lack of evidence. The complainant (victim) and key witnesses were found to be hostile to the prosecution case, with their testimony contradicting the FIR allegations of phone harassment, threats to circulate obscene photos, and repeated stalking. Key Reasoning: Despite the written FIR detailing incidents from August 6, 2021, the complainant testified under oath that no harassment occurred, and corroborating witnesses similarly denied the alleged acts. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Rajinder Urfz Monnu (118/2022) Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Rajendra Urfz Monnu of charges under IPC Section 354(d) (stalking) due to lack of evidence. The complainant (victim) and key witnesses were found to be hostile to the prosecution case, with their testimony contradicting the FIR allegations of phone harassment, threats to circulate obscene photos, and repeated stalking. Key Reasoning: Despite the written FIR detailing incidents from August 6, 2021, the complainant testified under oath that no harassment occurred, and corroborating witnesses similarly denied the alleged acts. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts