Raji M V vs Haneefa K — 100286/2023

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Crl.A - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: KLTR010059782023

e-Filing Number

16-11-2023

Filing Number

104545/2023

Filing Date

18-Nov-2023

Registration No

100286/2023

Registration Date

18-Nov-2023

Court

District And Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur

Judge

5-Additional District Court-II/Vigilance Judge,Thrissur

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Raji M V

    Adv. JAYAKRISHNAN T K

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Haneefa K

  2. 2.State of Kerala(PP)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: Crl.Appeal No. 286/2023 Raji M V v. Haneefa K and State of Kerala The appellate court upheld the conviction of Raji M V for dishonoring a cheque worth Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but reduced the fine from Rs. 6,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000, finding the trial court's doubled penalty unjustified. The court found the complainant proved the cheque's issuance in discharge of a legitimate debt, and rejected the appellant's unsubstantiated defense that the cheque was misused blank paper from a separate transaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Additional District Court-II/Vigilance Judge,Thrissur

  4. 23-Feb-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Additional District Court-II/Vigilance Judge,Thrissur

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Issue notice

    Additional District Court-II/Vigilance Judge,Thrissur

  6. 09-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Additional District Court-II/Vigilance Judge,Thrissur

  7. 27-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Additional District Court-II/Vigilance Judge,Thrissur

  8. 29-Nov-2025

    For Hearing

    Additional District Court-II/Vigilance Judge,Thrissur

  9. 07-Oct-2025

    Appearance Of Parties

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  10. 22-Aug-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  11. 22-Jul-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  12. 25-Jun-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  13. 04-Jun-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  14. 03-Apr-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  15. 24-Feb-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  16. 10-Jan-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  17. 17-Dec-2024

    Appearance Of Parties

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  18. 07-Nov-2024

    Adjourned

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  19. 01-Oct-2024

    Adjourned

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  20. 21-Aug-2024

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  21. 08-Jul-2024

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  22. 24-May-2024

    Await Records

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  23. 27-Feb-2024

    Call on

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  24. 23-Feb-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  25. 20-Jan-2024

    For L C R

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur

  26. 21-Nov-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 18-Nov-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100286/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Crl.Appeal No. 286/2023 Raji M V v. Haneefa K and State of Kerala The appellate court upheld the conviction of Raji M V for dishonoring a cheque worth Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but reduced the fine from Rs. 6,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000, finding the trial court's doubled penalty unjustified. The court found the complainant proved the cheque's issuance in discharge of a legitimate debt, and rejected the appellant's unsubstantiated defense that the cheque was misused blank paper from a separate transaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case