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

Case disposed

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

Indian Penal Code Section 354

Petitioner(s)

State

Adv. PP1

Respondent(s)

RAJINDER Advocate - SH. MAHIPAL DORATA

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ACJM

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

19-03-2026
Judgement

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

ACJM MJM Khetri Taluka HQ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case