STATE vs RAMKESH ETC. Advocate - KISHAN LAL JAIN — 120/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,406. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJBD140002992021

Filing Number

299/2021

Filing Date

07-Sep-2021

Registration No

120/2021

Registration Date

07-Sep-2021

Court

JM Indergarh Taluka

Judge

1-Jm

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 05-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

261

Police Station

Indergarh

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 420,406

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE

    Adv. APO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAMKESH ETC. Advocate - KISHAN LAL JAIN

  2. 2.RAJESH BAI

    Adv. ARIF ALI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    The court acquitted two accused persons of charges under IPC Sections 420 (fraud) and 406 (criminal breach of trust), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they fraudulently submitted false information to obtain benefits under the Prime Minister's Housing Scheme by misrepresenting their asset ownership. The court determined that while irregularities existed in the verification process, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the criminal intent required for conviction under the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jm

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Jm

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Jm

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Jm

  7. 20-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Jm

  8. 17-Feb-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Jm

  9. 10-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  10. 03-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  11. 31-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  12. 27-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  13. 13-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  14. 02-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  15. 04-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  16. 07-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  17. 15-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  18. 11-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  19. 01-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  20. 13-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  21. 21-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  22. 04-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  23. 21-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  24. 10-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  25. 29-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  26. 24-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  27. 27-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  28. 23-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  29. 25-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  30. 22-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  31. 23-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  32. 19-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  33. 21-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  34. 07-Nov-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  35. 22-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  36. 28-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  37. 10-May-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  38. 09-Mar-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  39. 17-Dec-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  40. 13-Oct-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  41. 05-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  42. 10-May-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  43. 22-Feb-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  44. 14-Dec-2021

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  45. 09-Nov-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  46. 07-Sep-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 120/2021

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted two accused persons of charges under IPC Sections 420 (fraud) and 406 (criminal breach of trust), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they fraudulently submitted false information to obtain benefits under the Prime Minister's Housing Scheme by misrepresenting their asset ownership. The court determined that while irregularities existed in the verification process, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the criminal intent required for conviction under the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case