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

2023 Supreme(Pat) 397

ANSHUMAN
Krishana Sahani – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dhannjay Kumar No. 2.
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Kumar, Gp-4.

DR. ANSHUMAN, J.:–Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State present.

2. The present criminal writ application has been filed for quashing of Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 101 of 2021 lodged under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 142(1)(a) of N.I. Act, taking cognizance under N.I. Act has to be made only by virtue of complaint case. Here in the present case, the informant wants to pursue this case by virtue of the F.I.R. Therefore, he conclusively submits that in the light of the position of law as laid down under Section 142(1)(a) of N.I. Act, present case is not maintainable.

4. Counsel for the State submits that counter affidavit has already been filed in this case. He submits that this case has not been filed solely under Section 138 of N.I. Act rather under Sections 406/ 420 of the I.P.C. read with Section 138 of N.I. Act.

5. Counsel submits that in this view of the matter, the statement of the petitioner made in relief portion is absolutely false and on this ground alone this case is fit to be dismissed.

6. After going through the contents of the F.I.R., it transpires to this Court that offence has been filed und

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