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

2004 Supreme(Guj) 242

C.K.BUCH
KIRPALSINGH PRATAPSINGH ORI – Appellant
Versus
SALVINDER KAUR HARDIPSINGH LOBANA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: I.M.PANDYA, Nandini Joshi, Priti Pandya, RAJESH K.SHAH

C. K. BUCH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner of Special Criminal Application NO. 1229 of 2003 is the original accused of Criminal Case No. 3616 of 2000 tried and convictedby the learned JMFC, 4th Court, Vadodara for offence punishable under section 138 of Netotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act) and the petitioner of other petition i. e. Special Criminal Application NO. 209 of 2004 is the original complainant of said Criminal Case.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience and brevity, both these petitioners are referred to as accused and complainant respectively.

( 3 ) THE accused Salvinder Kaur Hardipsingh Lubani has moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of Cr. P. C. for the following main reliefs mentioned in para 12 of the memo of the petition. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 3616 of 2000 dated 4. 10. 2002 and the same orders confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Vadodara in Appeal No. 16 of 2002 below exh. 11 dated 14. 11. 2003 pending hearing and final disposal of this Special

































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