VANITHA.A. vs MAHALAKSHMI M P — 303/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/S415. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th March 2026.

CRL.A - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: KAMS010066912025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

302/2025

Filing Date

28-08-2025

Registration No

303/2025

Registration Date

28-08-2025

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU

Judge

426-I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU

Decision Date

09th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA Section U/S415

Petitioner(s)

VANITHA.A.

Adv. K.R.SRINIVAS

Respondent(s)

MAHALAKSHMI M P

Hearing History

Judge: 426-I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU

09-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

05-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

02-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

05-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

09-03-2026
Judgment

Summary The Additional District & Sessions Judge at Mysuru dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal and confirmed her conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the accused issued a cheque of Rs. 5,80,000 towards repayment of a legitimate loan from the complainant, instructed the bank to stop payment, and failed to rebut the legal presumption or create reasonable doubt about the debt's validity. The court rejected the accused's inconsistent defense regarding a chit fund transaction, noting contradictions in her statements and lack of corroborating evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

30-08-2025
Orders
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional District & Sessions Judge at Mysuru dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal and confirmed her conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the accused issued a cheque of Rs. 5,80,000 towards repayment of a legitimate loan from the complainant, instructed the bank to stop payment, and failed to rebut the legal presumption or create reasonable doubt about the debt's validity. The court rejected the accused's inconsistent defense regarding a chit fund transaction, noting contradictions in her statements and lack of corroborating evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case