STATE vs TEJPAL NOONIYA ETC Advocate - Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma — 1293/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,406,120B. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.
CRI. CASE
CNR: RJJH020002982016
Filing Number
2931/2016
Filing Date
22-01-2016
Registration No
1293/2016
Registration Date
22-01-2016
Court
CJM ACJM JM Jhunjhunu District HQ
Judge
4-Senior Civil Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
196
Police Station
Police Station Pilani
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
TEJPAL NOONIYA ETC Advocate - Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma
Mahesh Nunia
Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Senior Civil Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgment
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 04-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 26-02-2026 | Final arguments |
| 17-02-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Tejpal Nooniya (Case 1293/2016) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu acquitted accused Mahesh Kumar of charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 120B and Sections 3/4, 5, 6 of the Chit Fund Prohibition Rules, 1978. The court found prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mahesh Kumar perpetrated fraud or misappropriation related to an alleged investment scheme (Priya Family Home Study Ltd.), as the complainant never directly alleged his involvement and other witnesses provided only oral testimony without documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State v. Tejpal Nooniya (Case 1293/2016) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu acquitted accused Mahesh Kumar of charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 120B and Sections 3/4, 5, 6 of the Chit Fund Prohibition Rules, 1978. The court found prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mahesh Kumar perpetrated fraud or misappropriation related to an alleged investment scheme (Priya Family Home Study Ltd.), as the complainant never directly alleged his involvement and other witnesses provided only oral testimony without documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts