state of rajasthan vs Harish Advocate - Sh. Balwant singh Banjara — 264/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498A. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJPG020006362022

Filing Number

631/2022

Filing Date

08-Mar-2022

Registration No

264/2022

Registration Date

08-Mar-2022

Court

CJM ACJM PGH ACJM AND JM AJM JJB COURT PRATAPGARH DISTRICT HQ

Judge

5-Acjm

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

20

Police Station

Dhamotar

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 498A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.state of rajasthan

    Adv. APO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Harish Advocate - Sh. Balwant singh Banjara

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    orderView PDF

    Case Summary Rajasthan State v. Harish (CIS No. 264/2022) The court acquitted the accused Harish of charges under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband/in-laws). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove dowry-related harassment and mistreatment with sufficient specificity—no concrete dates, amounts demanded, or particular incidents were established. The evidence revealed the primary marital discord stemmed from a photograph involving the wife with another man, not dowry demands, and the wife continued her nursing studies during marriage, contradicting claims she was prevented from studying. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  7. 17-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  8. 12-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  9. 09-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  10. 29-Jan-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  11. 19-Jan-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  12. 13-Jan-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  13. 06-Jan-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  14. 15-Dec-2025

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

    Acjm

  15. 01-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  16. 07-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  17. 17-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  18. 10-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  19. 03-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  20. 15-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  21. 28-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  22. 21-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  23. 05-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  24. 11-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  25. 14-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  26. 08-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  27. 07-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  28. 06-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  29. 06-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  30. 14-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  31. 14-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  32. 05-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  33. 08-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  34. 15-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  35. 20-Jun-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  36. 15-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  37. 14-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  38. 11-Jan-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  39. 11-Nov-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  40. 17-Sep-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  41. 26-Jul-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  42. 24-Jun-2022

    Cognizance / issuance of Process/ Service

    Acjm

  43. 29-Apr-2022

    Cognizance / issuance of Process/ Service

    Acjm

  44. 08-Mar-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  45. 08-Mar-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 264/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Rajasthan State v. Harish (CIS No. 264/2022) The court acquitted the accused Harish of charges under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband/in-laws). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove dowry-related harassment and mistreatment with sufficient specificity—no concrete dates, amounts demanded, or particular incidents were established. The evidence revealed the primary marital discord stemmed from a photograph involving the wife with another man, not dowry demands, and the wife continued her nursing studies during marriage, contradicting claims she was prevented from studying. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case