JIGAR NAVINCHAND PARIKH vs NIRANJAN BHAGVANDAS THAKKAR Advocate - R B PARMAR — 20/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 413. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: GJPM170002682026

Filing Number

20/2026

Filing Date

18-Feb-2026

Registration No

20/2026

Registration Date

18-Feb-2026

Court

ADDL. DIST. COURT HALOL

Judge

1-Addl.district & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 413

Petitioner(s)

1.JIGAR NAVINCHAND PARIKH

Adv. D S RATHOD

Respondent(s)

1.NIRANJAN BHAGVANDAS THAKKAR Advocate - R B PARMAR

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
01-Apr-2026

Judegement

Case Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 20/2026 Court Decision: The appellate court REJECTED the appeal and CONFIRMED the trial court's acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt due to: (1) no documentary evidence of the alleged ₹35.45 lakh loan; (2) failure to disclose the transaction in income tax returns; and (3) insufficient proof of financial capacity, raising suspicions of illegal money lending and potential money laundering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
01-Apr-2026

Disposed

Addl.district & Sessions Judge
23-Mar-2026

Urgent Hearing

Addl.district & Sessions Judge
18-Mar-2026

Urgent Hearing

Addl.district & Sessions Judge
17-Mar-2026

Urgent Hearing

Addl.district & Sessions Judge
13-Mar-2026

For R&P

Addl.district & Sessions Judge
09-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
18-Feb-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 20/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 20/2026 Court Decision: The appellate court REJECTED the appeal and CONFIRMED the trial court's acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt due to: (1) no documentary evidence of the alleged ₹35.45 lakh loan; (2) failure to disclose the transaction in income tax returns; and (3) insufficient proof of financial capacity, raising suspicions of illegal money lending and potential money laundering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.