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

Case disposed

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

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section 397,

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

06-03-2026

Disposed

21-02-2026

ORDER

10-02-2026

ORDER

10-02-2026

ORDER

10-02-2026

ORDER

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, BARDOLI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case