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
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
Petitioner(s)
VANITHA.A.
Adv. K.R.SRINIVAS
Respondent(s)
MAHALAKSHMI M P
Hearing History
Judge: 426-I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 05-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 02-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 05-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
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
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
Explore other courts