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
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
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
Disposed
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-04-2026 | ORDER |
| 10-04-2026 | ORDER |
| 13-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 21-02-2026 | ORDER |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts