Mahammad Jahir Ahammad S/o G. Abdul Sattar vs Basamma S/o Timmanna — 1866/2025
Case under Negotiable Instruments (amendment) Act Section 138. Status: EVIDENCE -CRIMINAL. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KADG620031952025
Next Hearing
07th July 2026
Filing Number
1866/2025
Filing Date
16-10-2025
Registration No
1866/2025
Registration Date
16-10-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAGALUR
Judge
256-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAGALUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mahammad Jahir Ahammad S/o G. Abdul Sattar
Adv. T H VAMSHI MOHAN
Respondent(s)
Basamma S/o Timmanna
Hearing History
Judge: 256-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAGALUR
EVIDENCE -CRIMINAL
NBW TO ACCUSED
NBW TO ACCUSED
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 03-06-2026 | EVIDENCE -CRIMINAL |
| 07-05-2026 | NBW TO ACCUSED |
| 13-03-2026 | NBW TO ACCUSED |
| 07-02-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 08-12-2025 | SUMMONS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 1866/2025 Court: Civil and First Class Judicial Magistrate's Court, Jagalur Parties: Mahammad Jahir Ahammad (Petitioner) v. Basamma (Respondent) Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of committing a cheating offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent had fraudulently obtained ₹5,00,000 from the petitioner on 03.02.2025, promising repayment within 6 months, and issued a post-dated check (No. 322966 dated 02.08.2025). When the check was presented on 12.08.2025, it bounced due to insufficient funds ("Funds Insufficient"). The respondent thereafter made false promises about repayment, and despite legal notice sent on 25.08.2025, failed to respond, establishing criminal intent to defraud. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 1866/2025 Court: Civil and First Class Judicial Magistrate's Court, Jagalur Parties: Mahammad Jahir Ahammad (Petitioner) v. Basamma (Respondent) Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of committing a cheating offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent had fraudulently obtained ₹5,00,000 from the petitioner on 03.02.2025, promising repayment within 6 months, and issued a post-dated check (No. 322966 dated 02.08.2025). When the check was presented on 12.08.2025, it bounced due to insufficient funds ("Funds Insufficient"). The respondent thereafter made false promises about repayment, and despite legal notice sent on 25.08.2025, failed to respond, establishing criminal intent to defraud. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts