Jagannath Sarangapani, Managing Director VS Varsana Ispat Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

M.R.SHAH
Jagannath Sarangapani, Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
Varsana Ispat Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Mr. D. Hanmanth Rao, Learned Sr. Counsel for Ms. Sonal D. Vyas, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: Notice Serviced by DS.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Anand B. Gogia, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 7: Mr. K.P. Kaval, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.—Rule. Mr. Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the original complainant and Mr. K. P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, in both these petitions.

1. Criminal Misc. Application No. 12631 of 2010 has been preferred by the petitioner original accused No. 5, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No. 4120 of 2009 filed by the Respondent No. 1 original complainant, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham.

2. Criminal Misc. Application No. 12635 of 2010 has been preferred by the petitioner original accused No.5, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No.5740 of 2009 filed by the Respondent No.1 original complainant, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham.

3. Both the afor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

M.R.SHAHJagannath Sarangapani, Managing Director – AppellantVersusVarsana Ispat Ltd. – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

M.R.SHAH
Jagannath Sarangapani, Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
Varsana Ispat Ltd. – Respondent