Sasidharan vs Baby Samyuktha — 101150/2020

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 26th March 2026.

ST - SUMMARY TRIAL

CNR: KLAL260029352020

Case disposed

Filing Number

104950/2020

Filing Date

18-11-2020

Registration No

101150/2020

Registration Date

18-11-2020

Court

JFCM I, Kayamkulam

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate

Decision Date

26th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138
Crl.mp/1/2026 Classification : Application to Issue Summons Section SasidharanBaby Samyuktha

Petitioner(s)

Sasidharan

Adv. Alexander Paniker

Respondent(s)

Baby Samyuktha

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate

26-03-2026

Disposed

23-03-2026

Order/Judgement

19-03-2026

FOR HEARING

17-03-2026

Order/Judgement

12-03-2026

For further hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

26-03-2026
Judgement

Summary The Kayamkulam court acquitted Baby Samyuktha of cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that the disputed cheque was issued as security for the complainant standing surety in another case, not as discharge of debt. The court relied on the accused's undertaking (Exhibit D1), the complainant's unconvincing explanation for not reporting alleged document fabrication, and the chronology showing the cheque was issued before the related case was disposed of—circumstances that rebutted the statutory presumption and rendered the complainant's version improbable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Kayamkulam court acquitted Baby Samyuktha of cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that the disputed cheque was issued as security for the complainant standing surety in another case, not as discharge of debt. The court relied on the accused's undertaking (Exhibit D1), the complainant's unconvincing explanation for not reporting alleged document fabrication, and the chronology showing the cheque was issued before the related case was disposed of—circumstances that rebutted the statutory presumption and rendered the complainant's version improbable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

JFCM I, Kayamkulam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case