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

S.B.SINHA, A.K.MATHUR, N.S.HEGDE
Adalat Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Rooplal Jindal – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate.
For the Respondents:B.K. Satija and Satish Vig, Advocates.

Judgment

Santosh Hegde, J.—This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 127 of 1995 whereby the High Court allowed the said revision petition, setting aside the order of the trial court dated 28.1.1995 and remanded the matter to the Court of Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows:

2. The 1st respondent herein filed a complaint under sections 120A, 120B, 405, 406, 415, 420, 463, 465 and 468 of the IPC against the appellant and other respondents herein alleging that the respondents have cheated and defrauded him. Taking cognizance of the said complaint on 26.5.1992 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoned the appellants herein and other accused by issuing process under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for offences confined to section 420 read with 120B IPC.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order of issuance of process the appellant and some of the accused moved the High Court and the High Court in the said petition directed the petitioners therein to move the trial court against the order of summoning. Pursuant to 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