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

B.D.RATHI
Vijay Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Sharma – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Ashish Dwivedi, Advocate

ORDER

B.D.Rathi, J.—The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) has been filed by the petitioner having been aggrieved by the order impugned dated 20/1/2015 passed by the revisional court in Cri. Rev. No. 467/14 whereby the order dated 15/12/2014 passed by the JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.5069/2014 was maintained.

2. As per the facts of the case, one private complaint was filed by the respondent-Pankanj Sharma against the petitioner-Vijay Kumar Gupta alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “NI Act”). After appearance of the petitioner, one application was preferred by him before the trial court on 3/11/2014 contending that in this case demand notice has not been served upon the petitioner/accused and therefore in the absence of service of notice, the complaint could not have been entertained by the court nor could any cognizance under the Act for the alleged offence have been taken. Said application was dismissed from the court of trial Magistrate vide order dated 15/12/2014. Against said rejection order dated 15/12/2014, the petitioner preferred Cri.Rev.No.467/14 before t

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