DINESHBHAI KESURBHAI JOTAVA vs JAVEDBHAI NURMAHMADBHAI SUMARA Advocate - A I SUMARA — 1731/2024

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS020026362024

Filing Number

1731/2024

Filing Date

07-Aug-2024

Registration No

1731/2024

Registration Date

07-Aug-2024

Court

Civil Court, Veraval

Judge

8-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DINESHBHAI KESURBHAI JOTAVA

    Adv. V P GADHAVI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAVEDBHAI NURMAHMADBHAI SUMARA Advocate - A I SUMARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary Criminal Case No. 1731/2024 - Chief Judicial Magistrate, Veraval, Gir Somnath The court acquitted the accused Javedbhai Nurmohammdbhai Sumara of charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 (dishonor of cheque). The complainant alleged the accused issued a cheque for ₹4,25,000 which was returned due to insufficient funds. However, the court found critical inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence regarding how such a large amount was arranged, undisclosed details about cheque issuance, and unsubstantiated claims of a close relationship between parties living 25 km apart, leading to reasonable doubt about the cheque's legitimacy and purposes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  5. 07-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  6. 02-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  7. 19-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  8. 07-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  9. 17-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  10. 28-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  11. 15-Nov-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  12. 18-Oct-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  13. 24-Sep-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  14. 03-Sep-2025

    Further Statement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  15. 13-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  16. 29-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  17. 21-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  18. 07-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  19. 16-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  20. 09-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  21. 26-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  22. 30-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  23. 20-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  24. 01-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  25. 13-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  26. 27-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  27. 21-Oct-2024

    Plea

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  28. 06-Sep-2024

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  29. 07-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 07-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1731/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Criminal Case No. 1731/2024 - Chief Judicial Magistrate, Veraval, Gir Somnath The court acquitted the accused Javedbhai Nurmohammdbhai Sumara of charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 (dishonor of cheque). The complainant alleged the accused issued a cheque for ₹4,25,000 which was returned due to insufficient funds. However, the court found critical inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence regarding how such a large amount was arranged, undisclosed details about cheque issuance, and unsubstantiated claims of a close relationship between parties living 25 km apart, leading to reasonable doubt about the cheque's legitimacy and purposes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case