Sudhir vs Jayprkesh Advocate - Mukesh Arya — 662/2018

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Convicted and Sentenced on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJCH070013262018

Filing Number

1325/2018

Filing Date

25-Sep-2018

Registration No

662/2018

Registration Date

25-Sep-2018

Court

CJM ACJM JM CRIMINAL CASES RAJGARH COURT COMPLEX CHURU

Judge

2-Acjm

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Convicted and Sentenced

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sudhir

    Adv. Ashok Kumar Poonia

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Jayprkesh Advocate - Mukesh Arya

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Judgement CopyView PDF

    Case Summary: 662/2018 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the respondent Jayprakash (accused) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued for discharging a debt or liability. Key Facts: Petitioner Sudhir lent ₹2 lakh to the accused on 10.02.2017 for house expenses. The accused issued cheque No. 724303 dated 05.06.2017 for ₹2,00,000 drawn on PNB. The cheque was returned with "Funds insufficient" mark on 14.06.2017. Despite receiving notice, the accused failed to make payment. Sentencing: The accused was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation of ₹3,05,000 to the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Acjm

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  8. 13-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  9. 28-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  10. 20-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  11. 29-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  12. 28-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  13. 26-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  14. 13-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  15. 29-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  16. 15-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  17. 25-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  18. 05-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  19. 09-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  20. 26-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  21. 08-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  22. 06-Nov-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  23. 06-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  24. 19-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  25. 30-May-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  26. 24-May-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  27. 26-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  28. 10-Mar-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  29. 21-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  30. 10-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  31. 04-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  32. 16-Jan-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  33. 11-Nov-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  34. 07-Sep-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  35. 03-Jun-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  36. 02-Jun-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  37. 30-Mar-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  38. 29-Jan-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  39. 29-Nov-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  40. 06-Sep-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  41. 04-Jun-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  42. 22-Apr-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  43. 23-Feb-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  44. 12-Dec-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  45. 03-Dec-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  46. 09-Sep-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  47. 24-Jul-2020

    Evidence before Charge

    Acjm

  48. 25-Jun-2020

    Evidence before Charge

    Acjm

  49. 02-Jun-2020

    Evidence before Charge

    Acjm

  50. 19-Mar-2020

    Evidence before Charge

    Acjm

  51. 04-Feb-2020

    Evidence before Charge

    Acjm

  52. 19-Oct-2019

    Evidence before Charge

    Acjm

  53. 01-Aug-2019

    Evidence before Charge

    Acjm

  54. 08-May-2019

    Evidence before Charge

    Acjm

  55. 07-May-2019

    Evidence before Charge

    Acjm

  56. 06-May-2019

    Evidence before Charge

    Acjm

  57. 06-Feb-2019

    Evidence before Charge

    Acjm

  58. 14-Nov-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  59. 25-Sep-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 662/2018

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 662/2018 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the respondent Jayprakash (accused) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued for discharging a debt or liability. Key Facts: Petitioner Sudhir lent ₹2 lakh to the accused on 10.02.2017 for house expenses. The accused issued cheque No. 724303 dated 05.06.2017 for ₹2,00,000 drawn on PNB. The cheque was returned with "Funds insufficient" mark on 14.06.2017. Despite receiving notice, the accused failed to make payment. Sentencing: The accused was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation of ₹3,05,000 to the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case