RASHMINA HIRENKUMAR PATEL vs NIMESHBHAI HARISHBHAI SHAH Advocate - A P PARMAR — 101/2025
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397,. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th March 2026.
CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION
CNR: GJSR190011112025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
101/2025
Filing Date
02-08-2025
Registration No
101/2025
Registration Date
02-08-2025
Court
ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, BARDOLI
Judge
1-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RASHMINA HIRENKUMAR PATEL
Adv. Y P SHAH
Respondent(s)
NIMESHBHAI HARISHBHAI SHAH Advocate - A P PARMAR
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Hearing History
Judge: 1-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 21-02-2026 | ORDER | |
| 10-02-2026 | ORDER | |
| 10-02-2026 | ORDER | |
| 10-02-2026 | ORDER |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The court dismissed the criminal revision application filed by Rashmina Hirenkumar Patel, a partner in a firm, challenging her summons in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The court held that while a partner who did not sign a cheque cannot be automatically liable, at the summoning stage, a prima facie case exists where partnership is admitted and responsibility for business is alleged. The court ruled that the defence of being a "sleeping partner" and non-signature are matters of evidence for trial, not grounds to quash summons at the initial stage, and confirmed the lower court's summoning order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court dismissed the criminal revision application filed by Rashmina Hirenkumar Patel, a partner in a firm, challenging her summons in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The court held that while a partner who did not sign a cheque cannot be automatically liable, at the summoning stage, a prima facie case exists where partnership is admitted and responsibility for business is alleged. The court ruled that the defence of being a "sleeping partner" and non-signature are matters of evidence for trial, not grounds to quash summons at the initial stage, and confirmed the lower court's summoning order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts