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

DELHI HIGH COURT
ASHA MENON
Ravi Vansha Narayan Mathur – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Table of Content
1. facts regarding the lease of property and alleged deceit. (Para 2 , 6 , 8)
2. jurisdictional issues regarding fir registration. (Para 10 , 11 , 16)
3. malice in initiating criminal proceedings. (Para 15 , 32 , 34)
4. court's authority and criteria for quashing fir. (Para 19 , 26 , 33)
5. final decision to quash the fir. (Para 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 14th March, 2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (for short, `MM'), South District, Saket, Delhi.

2. The facts as are relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioners and respondent No.2 entered into a commercial transaction where under the petitioners had leased out a property at Jaisalmer. The petitioner No.1 was a partner in the partnership firm by the name of M/s SRM Heritage Jaisalmer having its registered office at Mumbai. The petitioner No.2 was working as the Chief Development Officer of the partnership firm at the relevant time. The respondent No.2 is the Director of M/s JAH Developers Pvt. Ltd. (`company') alongwith two other Directors,

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