MINABEN MANGALSINH RATHOD vs VISHAL RAJANIKANT PATEL Advocate - J B JOSHI — 3007/2024
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPM040045252024
Filing Number
3007/2024
Filing Date
18-12-2024
Registration No
3007/2024
Registration Date
18-12-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, HALOL
Judge
4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MINABEN MANGALSINH RATHOD
Adv. M G RANA
Respondent(s)
VISHAL RAJANIKANT PATEL Advocate - J B JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 05-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 09-01-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 11-12-2025 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 3007/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the respondent Vishal Rajanikant Patel of charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138, finding that the petitioner failed to establish the essential elements of the offense. The court determined that while a check for Rs. 10,00,000 was issued as security for a loan, the petitioner's own bank statement and evidence demonstrated partial payments were made, and the relationship between the parties was settled through subsequent transactions, negating criminal liability. Key Reasoning: The court held that the petitioner had not proven the check was issued for a legally enforceable debt or that it was dishonored within the prescribed timeframe without valid justification. The evidence showed financial dealings between both parties across 2021-2022, with multiple deposits and withdrawals that indicated ongoing settlement rather than a clear default. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 3007/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the respondent Vishal Rajanikant Patel of charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138, finding that the petitioner failed to establish the essential elements of the offense. The court determined that while a check for Rs. 10,00,000 was issued as security for a loan, the petitioner's own bank statement and evidence demonstrated partial payments were made, and the relationship between the parties was settled through subsequent transactions, negating criminal liability. Key Reasoning: The court held that the petitioner had not proven the check was issued for a legally enforceable debt or that it was dishonored within the prescribed timeframe without valid justification. The evidence showed financial dealings between both parties across 2021-2022, with multiple deposits and withdrawals that indicated ongoing settlement rather than a clear default. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts