Ravindra Deviprasad Jaiswal vs The Buldana Urban Co-Op.Credit Society,Buldana. — 32/2025
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397,399,401. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th March 2026.
Cri.Rev.App.
CNR: MHBU010015282025
e-Filing Number
10-12-2025
Filing Number
876/2025
Filing Date
12-12-2025
Registration No
32/2025
Registration Date
12-12-2025
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
14-District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge Buldana
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ravindra Deviprasad Jaiswal
Adv. Waghmare PS
Respondent(s)
The Buldana Urban Co-Op.Credit Society,Buldana.
State of Maharashtra
Adv. DGP
Hearing History
Judge: 14-District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge Buldana
Disposed
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
Awaiting Notice
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Written Statement | |
| 26-02-2026 | Written Statement | |
| 20-01-2026 | Written Statement | |
| 20-12-2025 | Awaiting Notice |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that at the stage of issuing process, the magistrate need only establish prima facie grounds, and the accused's detailed defense—including claims that the cheque was merely a security cheque and no legally enforceable debt existed—are matters for trial. The court ruled that even security cheques can trigger Section 138 liability if presented against a legally enforceable obligation, and found no illegality in the magistrate's order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that at the stage of issuing process, the magistrate need only establish prima facie grounds, and the accused's detailed defense—including claims that the cheque was merely a security cheque and no legally enforceable debt existed—are matters for trial. The court ruled that even security cheques can trigger Section 138 liability if presented against a legally enforceable obligation, and found no illegality in the magistrate's order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts