Back
ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Om Prakash Dhanuka – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—Two petitioners have filed the present writ application for quashing of the F.I.R bearing Riga P.S. Case No. 244 of 2020 [Annexure-1] dated 18/08/2020 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 & 34 of the I.P.C. and for quashing of entire prosecution against the petitioners including the order of cognizance dated: 16/04/2022 taken by the court of learned A.C.J.M.-VI, Sitamarhi in G.R. Case No. 2917 of 2020 under Sections 406, 420 & 34 of the I.P.C., which has been challenged by way of I.A. No. 1 of 2022.
2. The petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and the petitioner no. 2 is the General Manager (Commercial) of the Riga Sugar Company Limited [hereinafter referred to as the ‘sugar company’].
3. The factual background of the case in brief is that in the year 2013 a tie-up arrangement was entered into by the bank for KCC loan in favour of sugarcane growers in which sugar company was a guarantor for the repayment. On 20.09.2013 a letter was issued by the Bank of India providing the procedure for KCC loan in favour of the sugarcane farmers at the instance of sugar company which became the guarantor and took the liability to re-pay the l
Point of law: Escrow Account opened by the Sugarcane Commissioner in this case is not referable to Section 17(5) of the Act, 1953 read with Rule 48A of the Rules, 1954, we do not wish to interfere wi....
The statutory obligations under the U.P. Sugarcane Act protect cane growers' rights by establishing a first charge on dues, mandating compliance by sugar mills and prioritizing timely payments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraudulent and dishonest acts at the inception are essential for constituting cheating under Section 420 IPC.
(1) No right per se is available to a third party to intervene and/or address Court, ceteris paribus, in relation to anticipatory bail.(2) Anticipatory bail – Legitimate concern of State has to be fa....
The judgment establishes that banks are liable for negligence in loan sanctioning, failing to comply with RBI guidelines, and engaging in connivance with borrowers, thereby enabling fraud.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
