STATE vs MAHESH KUMAR Advocate - Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma — 1515/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,406. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 25th March 2026.
CRI. CASE
CNR: RJJH020009572016
Filing Number
3659/2016
Filing Date
01-02-2016
Registration No
1515/2016
Registration Date
01-02-2016
Court
CJM ACJM JM Jhunjhunu District HQ
Judge
4-Senior Civil Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
516
Police Station
Police Station Gudha
Year
2013
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Adv. APO
Respondent(s)
MAHESH KUMAR Advocate - Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Senior Civil Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Final arguments
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 07-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 05-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Mahesh Kumar (1515/2016) Court Decision: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu acquitted accused Mahesh Kumar of all charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 120-B and Sections 3/4, 5, 6 of the Chit Fund (Prohibition) Act, 1978. Key Reasoning: The court found that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deceived or defrauded anyone. The complainant died during trial without testifying, witness statements lacked documentary support, and no witnesses confirmed direct dealings with the accused. The court further held that Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) cannot be simultaneously proven for the same transaction, citing the Supreme Court's Delhi Race Club judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Mahesh Kumar (1515/2016) Court Decision: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu acquitted accused Mahesh Kumar of all charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 120-B and Sections 3/4, 5, 6 of the Chit Fund (Prohibition) Act, 1978. Key Reasoning: The court found that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deceived or defrauded anyone. The complainant died during trial without testifying, witness statements lacked documentary support, and no witnesses confirmed direct dealings with the accused. The court further held that Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) cannot be simultaneously proven for the same transaction, citing the Supreme Court's Delhi Race Club judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts