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

2015 Supreme(Del) 1770

SUNIL GAUR
ANUBHAV DHAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Ranvir Singh & Mr. Robin Raju, Advocates
Mr. Praveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

JUDGMENT :

Quashing of criminal complaint No.175/1/12, under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the summoning order of 7th July, 2012 is sought on merits in this petition.

At the hearing, it was disclosed by learned counsel for petitioners that in view of Apex Court’s judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathor v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129 although the complaint in question has been transferred to the court of competent territorial jurisdiction but the proceedings are yet to start from the summoning stage and so this petition deserves to be considered on merits. However, it is submitted that Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. has not yet been framed.

At the outset, it is made clear that learned counsel for petitioners has not been heard on merits. Since petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy available to them to urge the pleas taken herein before trial court at the time of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., therefore, this Court finds that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not required to be invoked to quash the proceedings arising out of the complaint in question. It is being so said in view of dic














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