Vidosh P vs Pushpaja K V — 343/2016

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 16th March 2026.

ST - SUMMARY TRIAL

CNR: KLKN240029722016

Case disposed

Filing Number

343/2016

Filing Date

29-07-2016

Registration No

343/2016

Registration Date

29-07-2016

Court

J F C M, Mattannur

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138
Crl.mp/2897/2025 Classification : Application to Reopen Evidence Section Pushpaja K VVidosh P
Crl.mp/3290/2025 Classification : Petition Section Pushpaja K VVidosh P
Crl.mp(ab)/1/2026 Classification : Absent Petition Section Pushpaja K VVidosh P

Petitioner(s)

Vidosh P

Respondent(s)

Pushpaja K V

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate

16-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

10-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

06-03-2026

For further hearing

03-03-2026

For further hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
Judgement

Case Summary: STC 343/2016 Accused Pushpaja K.V is acquitted of cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found the complainant failed to prove the accused issued the cheque to discharge a legally enforceable debt, citing suspicious circumstances including lack of documentary evidence, unsubstantiated claims of financial capacity (₹7,75,000 advance without proof), inconsistent testimony, and absence of corroborating witnesses, despite the accused's undisputed cheque signature. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: STC 343/2016 Accused Pushpaja K.V is acquitted of cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found the complainant failed to prove the accused issued the cheque to discharge a legally enforceable debt, citing suspicious circumstances including lack of documentary evidence, unsubstantiated claims of financial capacity (₹7,75,000 advance without proof), inconsistent testimony, and absence of corroborating witnesses, despite the accused's undisputed cheque signature. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

J F C M, Mattannur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case