SUHANI DHABHAI D/O SHRI GAJENDRA, W/O SHRI MAGRAJ, vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — CRLW/885/2026
Case under The Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
CNR: RJHC020530292026
e-Filing Number
26-05-2026
Filing Number
CRLW/22278/2026
Filing Date
27-May-2026
Registration No
CRLW/885/2026
Registration Date
01-Jun-2026
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
Other Criminal matters ( 113 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL
Last updated 06-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUHANI DHABHAI D/O SHRI GAJENDRA, W/O SHRI MAGRAJ,
Adv. GOVIND GUPTA
-
2.MAGRAJ S/O SHRI LUNARAM,
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (SOUTH),
-
3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO),
-
4.GAJENDRA DHABHAI S/O LATE SHRI SATYANARAYAN,
-
5.GITANSH DHABHAI S/O SHRI GAJENDRA DHABHAI,
-
6.MOHAN LAL VERMA S/O NAMAUM,
-
7.SAURABH GURJAR S/O SHRI PANNA LAL GURJAR,
-
8.DEVENDRA DHABHAI S/O LATE SHRI SATYANARYAN,
Case History
-
05-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
05-Jun-2026
Ashutosh Kumar (V.j.)View PDF
Case Summary: CRLW/885/2026 Two major adults, Suhani Dhabhai and Magraj, sought protection from threats to their life and liberty after solemnizing their marriage on 18.07.2025, which was disapproved by family members. The Rajasthan High Court disposed of the petition with directions to the Station House Officer, Police Station Muhana, to file an application and grant appropriate protective measures after analyzing threat perceptions, affirming the petitioners' constitutional right to protection under Article 21. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
27-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRLW/885/2026
Case Summary: CRLW/885/2026 Two major adults, Suhani Dhabhai and Magraj, sought protection from threats to their life and liberty after solemnizing their marriage on 18.07.2025, which was disapproved by family members. The Rajasthan High Court disposed of the petition with directions to the Station House Officer, Police Station Muhana, to file an application and grant appropriate protective measures after analyzing threat perceptions, affirming the petitioners' constitutional right to protection under Article 21. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts