RAJESH DHULABHAI VALAND vs AKASH AJAYKUMAR SONI — 648/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 233. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 30th April 2026.

CR EN - CRIMINAL ENQUIRY

CNR: GJPM020036102025

Case disposed

Filing Number

648/2025

Filing Date

06-06-2025

Registration No

648/2025

Registration Date

06-06-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT GODHRA

Judge

1-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE

Decision Date

30th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 233

Petitioner(s)

RAJESH DHULABHAI VALAND

Adv. H J PRESSWALA

Respondent(s)

AKASH AJAYKUMAR SONI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE

30-04-2026

Disposed

23-04-2026

ORDER

10-04-2026

ORDER

13-03-2026

ORDER

21-02-2026

ORDER

Final Orders / Judgements

30-04-2026
ORDER

Case Summary: 648/2025 Petitioner: Rajesh Dhulabhai Valand Respondent: Akash Ajaykumar Soni The court dismissed the criminal complaint under CrPC Section 203 (Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Section 226). The petitioner alleged the respondent, a jewelry shop owner, defrauded him of ₹14,50,220 through a "zero-making charges" investment scheme and refused refund despite demands. However, the court found that since a civil money dispute was already pending between the parties and the petitioner failed to establish cognizable criminal offense from available documentary evidence (bank statements, bills, checks), the complaint lacked sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 648/2025 Petitioner: Rajesh Dhulabhai Valand Respondent: Akash Ajaykumar Soni The court dismissed the criminal complaint under CrPC Section 203 (Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Section 226). The petitioner alleged the respondent, a jewelry shop owner, defrauded him of ₹14,50,220 through a "zero-making charges" investment scheme and refused refund despite demands. However, the court found that since a civil money dispute was already pending between the parties and the petitioner failed to establish cognizable criminal offense from available documentary evidence (bank statements, bills, checks), the complaint lacked sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL COURT GODHRA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case