MOGHAJIBHAI RAJSANGBHAI UPLANA PATEL vs VAJESINH HARIJI RAJPUT Advocate - M T CHAVDA — 285/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415(3). Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 18th April 2026.
CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: GJBK010031382025
Filing Number
285/2025
Filing Date
19-Aug-2025
Registration No
285/2025
Registration Date
19-Aug-2025
Court
DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR
Judge
6-2nd Addl District Judge
Decision Date
18-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOK ADALAT
Last updated 06-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MOGHAJIBHAI RAJSANGBHAI UPLANA PATEL
Adv. J D PATEL
Respondent(s)
-
1.VAJESINH HARIJI RAJPUT Advocate - M T CHAVDA
-
2.Government of Gujarat
Adv. D H CHAPIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Banaskantha District Court (Second Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur) allowed a criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the parties had reached a settlement, with the appellant fully compensating the complainant, and therefore exercised discretion to compound the offense and acquit the appellant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Apr-2026
Disposed
2nd Addl District Judge
-
04-Apr-2026
Process To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Judgement
2nd Addl District Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Final Hearing
2nd Addl District Judge
-
07-Feb-2026
Final Hearing
2nd Addl District Judge
-
03-Jan-2026
Final Hearing
2nd Addl District Judge
-
03-Nov-2025
For R&P
2nd Addl District Judge
-
02-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 285/2025
Court Decision Summary The Banaskantha District Court (Second Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur) allowed a criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the parties had reached a settlement, with the appellant fully compensating the complainant, and therefore exercised discretion to compound the offense and acquit the appellant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts