State Govt. vs Babu Lal Advocate - CM Sharma — 2217/2015
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 420,406. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th May 2026.
Cr.reg. - Cr.Regular
CNR: RJAL230005222015
Filing Number
1041/2015
Filing Date
05-10-2015
Registration No
2217/2015
Registration Date
05-10-2015
Court
CJ JM Thanagazi
Judge
2-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
30th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Govt.
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Babu Lal Advocate - CM Sharma
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 29-05-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 27-05-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 26-05-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 22-05-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
CASE SUMMARY: 2217/2015 Court Decision (30.05.2026): The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Babu Lal Sharma of charges under IPC Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust). The court found that while the petitioner proved money transactions occurred between the parties, the prosecution failed to establish the fraudulent intent necessary for Section 420 or the fiduciary entrustment required for Section 406. The evidence revealed a civil money dispute between the petitioner and accused regarding land sale proceeds, not criminal deception or criminal breach of trust. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: 2217/2015 Court Decision (30.05.2026): The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Babu Lal Sharma of charges under IPC Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust). The court found that while the petitioner proved money transactions occurred between the parties, the prosecution failed to establish the fraudulent intent necessary for Section 420 or the fiduciary entrustment required for Section 406. The evidence revealed a civil money dispute between the petitioner and accused regarding land sale proceeds, not criminal deception or criminal breach of trust. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts