Court on its own Motion vs State

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Court on its own Motion – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent

Table of Content
1. procedure for complaints under section 138 (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. inherent powers of trial court and section 258 cr.p.c. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. negative conclusion on question no. 1 (Para 8)
4. final orders and recommendations (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT

Siddharth Mridul, J. (Open Court)--The present criminal reference petition, instituted under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.') has been referred by the Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the present reference raises the following questions for consideration by this Court:

"1. "To be or not to Be"

The proverbial Hamletian delimma, if were to be defined in terminology with respect to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cases, if would read as thus:

"To discharge an accused or not to discharge an Accused".

2. The court of the referring Magistrate was seized of the complaint CC No. 519899/16 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the `NI Act') wherein which process was issued against the accuse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTSIDDHARTH MRIDUL, RAJNISH BHATNAGARCourt on its own Motion – AppellantVersusState – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Court on its own Motion – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent