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

S.K.JAIN
R. N. Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Amrik Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner - Mr. OP. Goyal, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Taran Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent - Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Jain, J. - R.N. Khanna petitioner, herein, is the Director of M/s. Sri Krishna Woolen Mills (P) Ltd., Bombay, Amrik Singh, respondent was employed with the said company with effect from 1.10.1958 to 30.11.1988. He tendered his resignation which was accepted and he was relieved on 31.10.1988. Since the company failed to pay the amount of his gratuity, Amrik Singh Nayyar instituted complaint Annexure P-2 under section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, on 1. 24.12.1991 in the Court of Chief Judicator Magistrate, Ludhiana. Vide his order dated 31.10.1992 the said Magistrate summoned the petitioner. Through this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Shri R.N. Khanna Petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint Annexure P-2 and summoning order Annexure P-1.

2. On being served, respondent has filed the reply.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a bare reading of the complaint will show that no offence whatsoever has been made out even prima facie.

5. In reply, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by th

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