Mafatlal Udaji Porwal vs Ms Manibhadra Agritech Firm Owner Ashok Pannalal Bordiya Alias Ashokkumar Jain — 65/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,420,34,. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO070003742024
e-Filing Number
23-02-2024
Filing Number
239/2024
Filing Date
23-02-2024
Registration No
65/2024
Registration Date
04-03-2024
Court
Civil Court Sr.Dn. and Jr.Dn. Jaysingpur
Judge
18-3rd Joint CJJD JMFC Jaysingpur
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mafatlal Udaji Porwal
Adv. C. S. Killedar
Respondent(s)
Ms Manibhadra Agritech Firm Owner Ashok Pannalal Bordiya Alias Ashokkumar Jain
Ankit Ashok Bordiya
Hearing History
Judge: 18-3rd Joint CJJD JMFC Jaysingpur
Disposed
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 04-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 18-02-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 03-02-2026 | Order on Exh |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the criminal complaint against the accused, holding that the dispute was civil in nature and did not constitute criminal breach of trust (Section 406) or cheating (Section 420) under IPC. The court found insufficient grounds for criminal proceedings, noting that while the complainant's son invested approximately Rs. 24+ lakhs in the accused's firm with promises of partnership that were unfulfilled, the transaction involved TDS certificates, partial returns of Rs. 13 lakhs, and underlying matrimonial disputes—all indicators of a contractual/financial dispute rather than criminal fraud. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the criminal complaint against the accused, holding that the dispute was civil in nature and did not constitute criminal breach of trust (Section 406) or cheating (Section 420) under IPC. The court found insufficient grounds for criminal proceedings, noting that while the complainant's son invested approximately Rs. 24+ lakhs in the accused's firm with promises of partnership that were unfulfilled, the transaction involved TDS certificates, partial returns of Rs. 13 lakhs, and underlying matrimonial disputes—all indicators of a contractual/financial dispute rather than criminal fraud. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts