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

2006 Supreme(Del) 2230

BADAR DURREZ AHMED
G. UDAYAN DRAVID – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.S.Kulshrestha, Harish Malhotra, Pawan Sharma, SATISH KUMAR, TANUJ KHURANA


BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THESE two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') are essentially for the same relief, i. e. , quashing of the FIR No. 62/2004 under Section 406/120-B ipc registered at police station Kapashera. The petitioners have sought quashing in one petition on the ground of compromise /settlement arrived at between the petitioners on the one hand and the complainant bank (ICICI Bank Ltd) on the other. Quashing of the FIR has also been sought on merits in the other petition. However, both the petitions are taken up together and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that the FIR referred to above came to be registered at the instance of the complainant bank on account of the alleged non-payment of the loans taken by the petitioners for 14 vehicles which stood hypothecated with the complainant bank. There is also no dispute that the petitioners and the complainant bank have settled the matter amongst themselves. An affidavit of one of the petitioners, namely, G. Udayan dravid dated 16. 11. 2006 has been filed in this court as per the draft





























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