State vs Arun Kumar Gupta — 2638/2020

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,120B. Status: Appearance. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.

Appearance Next hearing 09-Jul-2026

Warrant or Summons Criminal Case

CNR: UPSR040031872020

Filing Number

3187/2020

Filing Date

03-Mar-2020

Registration No

2638/2020

Registration Date

03-Mar-2020

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate

Judge

3-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

224

Police Station

Malhipur

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 420,120B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Arun Kumar Gupta

  2. 2.Himanshu Gupta

  3. 3.Ayyas @ Iliyas

  4. 4.Ashrfi Lal

Case History

  1. 09-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  3. 11-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  4. 23-Jun-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  5. 03-Mar-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  6. 05-Nov-2024

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  7. 07-Aug-2024

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  8. 15-Jul-2024

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  9. 03-Jul-2024

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  10. 01-Jun-2024

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  11. 16-Apr-2024

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  12. 21-Dec-2023

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  13. 27-Oct-2023

    Appearance

    Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ftc/Acjm

  14. 03-Oct-2023

    Appearance

    Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ftc/Acjm

  15. 05-Sep-2023

    Appearance

    Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ftc/Acjm

  16. 28-Aug-2023

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  17. 16-Aug-2023

    Restored

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  18. 22-Jul-2022

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: State v. Arun Kumar Gupta & Others (2638/2020) The accused were charged under IPC Sections 420 and 120-B for allegedly defrauding a mentally disabled person (Ramgopal) by fraudulently transferring his land. The court found that the investigation revealed no credible evidence of criminal fraud—the land transfer involved full consideration (₹12 lakh paid to the seller), and the complainant's claim that Ramgopal was mentally disabled was contradicted by witness testimony showing he appeared normal and conducted the transaction consciously. The court held that the dispute was civil in nature and that the necessary ingredients of fraud under Sections 420 and 120-B were not established. The court discharged the accused from the charges under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  19. 22-Jul-2022

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  20. 16-Jul-2022

    Objection/Disposal

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  21. 13-Jul-2022

    Objection/Disposal

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  22. 07-Jul-2022

    Charge

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  23. 30-Jun-2022

    Charge

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  24. 31-Mar-2022

    Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  25. 02-Feb-2022

    Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  26. 26-Oct-2021

    Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  27. 16-Oct-2021

    Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  28. 01-Oct-2021

    Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  29. 08-Jul-2021

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  30. 19-Apr-2021

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  31. 28-Jan-2021

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  32. 27-Oct-2020

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  33. 24-Jul-2020

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  34. 28-Apr-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  35. 03-Mar-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2638/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Arun Kumar Gupta & Others (2638/2020) The accused were charged under IPC Sections 420 and 120-B for allegedly defrauding a mentally disabled person (Ramgopal) by fraudulently transferring his land. The court found that the investigation revealed no credible evidence of criminal fraud—the land transfer involved full consideration (₹12 lakh paid to the seller), and the complainant's claim that Ramgopal was mentally disabled was contradicted by witness testimony showing he appeared normal and conducted the transaction consciously. The court held that the dispute was civil in nature and that the necessary ingredients of fraud under Sections 420 and 120-B were not established. The court discharged the accused from the charges under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case