SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Kar) 162

K.B.NAVADGI
GIRIDHARILAL – Appellant
Versus
PRATAP RAI MEHTA – Respondent


Advocates:
M.V.DEVARAJ, N.S.HEDGE, S.S.KOTI

K. B. NAVADGI, J.

( 1 ) 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short ). The petitioners have prayed to recall the order dated 4-11-1988 made by this court in Criminal Revision Petition No, 398/88 and to quash the private complaint lodged by respondent-1 against them taken on file by the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore City in PCR No. 87/88.

( 2 ) ON hearing Shri Santosh Hegde, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners, notice was directed to respondent-1 regarding admission and orders. Learned high Court Government Pleader was requested to assist the Court in examining the maintainability or otherwise of the petition.

( 3 ) THE record is perused. The learned senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No. l and the learned high Court Government Pleader are heard.

( 4 ) THE question that arises for consideration and determination is: 1) Whether the petition is maintainable?

( 5 ) THE facts relevant to be referred to and noticed are these: shri Pratap Rai Mehta, respondent-1, lodged a complaint against Giridharilal, Smt. Sonal J. Vora, Sri Dinesh G. Vora, Smt. Bina p. Vora and Sri Shashikant G. V


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top