RASHMINA HIRENKUMAR PATEL vs NIMESHBHAI HARISHBHAI SHAH Advocate - A P PARMAR — 102/2025
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397,. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th March 2026.
CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION
CNR: GJSR190011122025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
102/2025
Filing Date
02-08-2025
Registration No
102/2025
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 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat rejected the criminal revision application filed by Rashmina Patel (wife of accused no.1) challenging her summoning in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The court held that even a sleeping partner cannot escape liability merely by not signing the cheque when the complainant pleads partnership and joint liability; the question of whether she was actively involved in business conduct is a trial stage issue, not grounds for quashing at the summoning stage. The magistrate's summoning order was confirmed as the procedural requirements were satisfied and a prima facie case existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat rejected the criminal revision application filed by Rashmina Patel (wife of accused no.1) challenging her summoning in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The court held that even a sleeping partner cannot escape liability merely by not signing the cheque when the complainant pleads partnership and joint liability; the question of whether she was actively involved in business conduct is a trial stage issue, not grounds for quashing at the summoning stage. The magistrate's summoning order was confirmed as the procedural requirements were satisfied and a prima facie case existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts