VIJAY KUMAR(Not Applicable) vs M/S NEW SHILPI JEWELLERS(Not Applicable) — CR.R/642/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438&442. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 23rd March 2026.
CNR: HPHC010683382025
Filing Number
CR.R/10509/2025
Filing Date
07-Nov-2025
Registration No
CR.R/642/2025
Registration Date
12-Nov-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.VIJAY KUMAR(Not Applicable)
Adv. Jeevan Kumar,Ekta Kumari,Ekta Kumari, ,Ekta Kumari
Respondent(s)
-
1.M/S NEW SHILPI JEWELLERS(Not Applicable)
Adv. NEMO 1123
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF
Summary of CR.R/642/2025 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Vijay Kumar's criminal revision challenging his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Kumar was convicted for issuing a dishonoured cheque of ₹1,84,000 for gold purchased, with the cheque bounced due to insufficient funds. The court rejected his arguments on limitation, firm registration, and partial payment, holding that legal presumptions under the NI Act apply since he admitted issuing the cheque, and confirmed his one-year imprisonment, ₹2,60,000 fine, and one-month default imprisonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF
-
28-Nov-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF
-
13-Nov-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF
-
13-Nov-2025
Notice Before Admission
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
-
07-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. CR.R/642/2025
Summary of CR.R/642/2025 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Vijay Kumar's criminal revision challenging his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Kumar was convicted for issuing a dishonoured cheque of ₹1,84,000 for gold purchased, with the cheque bounced due to insufficient funds. The court rejected his arguments on limitation, firm registration, and partial payment, holding that legal presumptions under the NI Act apply since he admitted issuing the cheque, and confirmed his one-year imprisonment, ₹2,60,000 fine, and one-month default imprisonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts