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

2006 Supreme(Del) 1168

A.K.SIKRI
O. S. PASRICHA – Appellant
Versus
SATE OF DELHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Baldev Malik, KAILASH VASUDEV, RAMESH SHARMA, Sunil Sethi

( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, namely m/s. Bhargava and Associates Pvt. Ltd. , has filed criminal complaint against the petitioners herein under section 420, IPC in which order dated 29-3-1996 was passed by the learned MM summoning the petitioners. The petitioners filed application for recalling of the summoning orders, which has been dismissed by the learned MM vide order dated 3-4-2003.

( 2 ) THE main contention of the petitioners, on the basis of which they seek dismissal of the complaint, is that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and criminal complaint has been filed giving it a colour of offence of cheating which is to harass and pressurize the petitioners. It is this question which needs determination by this Court. In order to appreciate the controversy, let me scan through the undisputed facts which emerge from the complaint.

( 3 ) IN the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners, it is alleged that the petitioners had engaged the services of the complainant for carrying out various works at sites allegedly owned by the petitioners and upon engaging its services, the petitioners had declined and failed to pay for the services rendere





















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