state vs Parmanand Advocate - Mr. Dheeraj Singh Jhala — 64/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,406. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJJW060002502021
Filing Number
218/2021
Filing Date
17-03-2021
Registration No
64/2021
Registration Date
17-03-2021
Court
SC ST Jhalawar District HQ
Judge
77-Special Judge SC/ST Cases
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
23
Police Station
Sarola
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
state
Adv. Spl.PP
Respondent(s)
Parmanand Advocate - Mr. Dheeraj Singh Jhala
Yasin Mohd.
Adv. Mr. Dheeraj Singh Jhala
Late UdayLal
Hearing History
Judge: 77-Special Judge SC/ST Cases
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 25-02-2026 | Final arguments |
| 11-02-2026 | Final arguments |
| 05-02-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court acquitted Paramanand and Yaseen Mohammad (Bablu) of charges under IPC sections 420 (fraud), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and relevant SC/ST Act provisions due to insufficient evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused were alleged to have fraudulently sold 12.02 bigha of land to complainant Kazodibai for ₹27 lakhs while failing to deliver complete ownership registration or return the amount, but witness testimonies contained contradictions and key documentary evidence regarding land ownership was inconclusive. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court acquitted Paramanand and Yaseen Mohammad (Bablu) of charges under IPC sections 420 (fraud), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and relevant SC/ST Act provisions due to insufficient evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused were alleged to have fraudulently sold 12.02 bigha of land to complainant Kazodibai for ₹27 lakhs while failing to deliver complete ownership registration or return the amount, but witness testimonies contained contradictions and key documentary evidence regarding land ownership was inconclusive. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts