SUNIL GAUR
Satish Kumar Modi – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
1. A common thread, which runs through the above - captioned four petitions, is that these petitions spring out of proceedings in FIR No. 31/2005 for the offences under Sections 4 06/409/418/420/120B of IPC, - registered at police station Palam Airport, Delhi . Since the facts in the above captioned four petitioners are so intertwined, therefore, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by one common -order.
2. In the above captioned first petition [Crl. M.C. No.1089/2012], an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner has been dismissed by trial Court and learned Revisional Court vide impugned order of 14 th March, 2012 has maintained trial court's order dismissing petitioner's aforesaid application.
3. Challenge to the aforesaid impugned order is on the ground that by concealing and suppressing material facts, complainant/first - informant has managed to get FIR No. 31/1005 registered against petitioner and so, petitioner's application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. could not be outrightly rejected, as at the stage of consideration of this application, it is only to be seen as to whether an enquiry should be made. At the hearing it was
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.