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

1984 Supreme(Del) 126

JAGDISH CHANDRA
K. K. KHANNA – Appellant
Versus
EXPO. ENTERPRISES – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.L.RAVAL, H.S.Dhir

Jagdish Chandra

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of 24. 12. 83 of Shri K. P. Verma, Additional District Judge, whereby he directed the lodging of a criminal complaint against the appellants for the offences alleged to have been committed by them u/s 191 read with S. 193 of the IPC for their having pleaded under ground no. 4 (13) of the appeal. "that the respondent no. 2 is not party in the proceedings. . . . . "

( 2 ) THE appellants supported the aforesaid ground of their appeal even by means of an affidavit dated 31. 10. 81 deposed to by the appellant K. K. Khanna on behalf of the appellants. Respondent 2 was a party in the insolvency proceedings and had subsequently on his own application, been substituted as petitioner creditor in those proceedings.

( 3 ) THE persual of the impugned order shows that it was no-where opined or recorded as a fact that the lodging of the complaint against the appellants was expedient in the interest of justice as required u/s. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code. ). This requirement of law was of fundamental importance and the omission in that regard vitiates the impugned order. Even though prosecution for p









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