SANJEEV JINDAL vs state — 509/2024
Case under Cr. P.c Section crpc. Disposed: Contested--PETITION ALLOWED on 19th May 2026.
Cr Rev - CRIMINAL REVISION
CNR: DLSE010089222024
e-Filing Number
29-08-2024
Filing Number
49126/2024
Filing Date
29-08-2024
Registration No
509/2024
Registration Date
02-09-2024
Court
District and Sessions Judge, South-East , Saket
Judge
9-Additional Sessions Judge
Decision Date
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PETITION ALLOWED
FIR Details
Police Station
EOW SOUTH EAST
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANJEEV JINDAL
Adv. Sushant Mukund
Respondent(s)
state
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Additional Sessions Judge
Disposed
Arguments .
Arguments .
Arguments .
Arguments .
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-05-2026 | Arguments . |
| 28-04-2026 | Arguments . |
| 22-04-2026 | Arguments . |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments . |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 509/2024 - Sanjeev Jindal v. State: Summary The court set aside charges against Sanjeev Jindal for cheating, forgery, and conspiracy, holding the trial court's charge order rested on mere suspicion rather than grave suspicion grounded in admissible evidence. Although forged property documents were used to obtain a bank loan and funds were transferred to entities connected with Jindal, the court found no prima facie material linking him to document fabrication, impersonation, dishonest inducement, or conspiracy—only his role as guarantor and financial benefit from loan proceeds, which cannot constitute criminal liability without evidence of mens rea and conscious involvement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case 509/2024 - Sanjeev Jindal v. State: Summary The court set aside charges against Sanjeev Jindal for cheating, forgery, and conspiracy, holding the trial court's charge order rested on mere suspicion rather than grave suspicion grounded in admissible evidence. Although forged property documents were used to obtain a bank loan and funds were transferred to entities connected with Jindal, the court found no prima facie material linking him to document fabrication, impersonation, dishonest inducement, or conspiracy—only his role as guarantor and financial benefit from loan proceeds, which cannot constitute criminal liability without evidence of mens rea and conscious involvement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts