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

Case disposed

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

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 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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, BARDOLI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case