STATE vs rajveer @ dholia Advocate - SH. DAYARAM — 155/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,406,427,435,120B. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 06th April 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJJH180002162021
Filing Number
202/2021
Filing Date
30-Jan-2021
Registration No
155/2021
Registration Date
30-Jan-2021
Court
JM COURT BUHANA
Judge
13-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
06-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 27-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
140
Police Station
Pacheri kalan
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE
Adv. apo
Respondent(s)
-
1.rajveer @ dholia Advocate - SH. DAYARAM
-
2.dhansingh @ dhanna
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Apr-2026
Copy of document.
Case Summary: State v. Rajveer @ Dholia & Dhansingh @ Dhanna (155/2021) Decision: The court acquitted both accused, Rajveer @ Dholia and Dhansingh @ Dhanna, of charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 427, and 435 due to insufficient evidence, while finding them guilty only of a settlement agreement regarding Sections 420, 406, 427. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused conspired to intentionally burn the complainant's motorcycle (HR 35 AD 2145) on September 4, 2020. Key Reasoning: The main witness (complainant Manjeet) and eyewitnesses refused to provide corroborating testimony about the incident. The court noted the complainant was declared hostile by prosecution, and other eyewitnesses contradicted or refused to confirm their police statements. Without credible eyewitness testimony connecting the accused to the alleged arson, the court held that merely procedural/formal evidence was insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Apr-2026
Disposed
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Mar-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Jan-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
05-Jan-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Dec-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Dec-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Nov-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Nov-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Oct-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Oct-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Sep-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
15-Sep-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
01-Sep-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Aug-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Aug-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Jul-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Jul-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Jun-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Jun-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
27-May-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
22-May-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Mar-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Dec-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Sep-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Jun-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Jan-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Sep-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Sep-2023
Hearing arguments on Charge
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Sep-2023
Hearing arguments on Charge
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Aug-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
19-May-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Feb-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
01-Dec-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Aug-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
25-May-2022
Hearing arguments on Charge
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
05-Mar-2022
Hearing arguments on Charge
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
28-Jan-2022
Hearing arguments on Charge
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Nov-2021
Hearing arguments on Charge
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Sep-2021
Service of Non-bailable warrant
-
07-Jun-2021
Hearing arguments on Charge
-
05-Apr-2021
Hearing arguments on Charge
-
06-Mar-2021
Hearing arguments on Charge
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Feb-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Jan-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 155/2021
Case Summary: State v. Rajveer @ Dholia & Dhansingh @ Dhanna (155/2021) Decision: The court acquitted both accused, Rajveer @ Dholia and Dhansingh @ Dhanna, of charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 427, and 435 due to insufficient evidence, while finding them guilty only of a settlement agreement regarding Sections 420, 406, 427. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused conspired to intentionally burn the complainant's motorcycle (HR 35 AD 2145) on September 4, 2020. Key Reasoning: The main witness (complainant Manjeet) and eyewitnesses refused to provide corroborating testimony about the incident. The court noted the complainant was declared hostile by prosecution, and other eyewitnesses contradicted or refused to confirm their police statements. Without credible eyewitness testimony connecting the accused to the alleged arson, the court held that merely procedural/formal evidence was insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts