Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Harcharan – Appellant
Versus
Sun Pack India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of cheque dishonour complaint and summoning order (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's denial of directorial role and liability (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. respondent's objections on limitation and maintainability (Para 7) |
| 4. revision maintainable even if filed by third party (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. summoning order not interlocutory; revision lies (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. revision barred by limitation against delayed challenge (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. petition dismissed; no merit bearing (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the summoning order dated 12.08.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in Complaint bearing Registration No. 212 of 2018 titled Sun Pack India vs. M/s Himalayan Hygienic Food & Drinks Pvt. Ltd. and consequential proceedings arising out of the same. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused
Summoning order not interlocutory, revision maintainable even by third party invoking suo motu power; barred if beyond 90-day limitation from issuance, challenge to consequential warrants ineffective....
A signatory of a cheque can be held liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the dismissal of a complaint for want of prosecution does not bar the revisional court from correcting such orders.
Directors of a company cannot be summoned under Section 138 of the NI Act without specific allegations of their individual responsibility for the company's conduct.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with legal provisions, including the conduct of an inquiry as required under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., and the applicability of Secti....
Acquittal under Section 256 CrPC requires the presence of the complainant; absent this and with no evidence against the accused, dismissal cannot transition to acquittal.
At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defense version or evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant.
Criminal Revision - Party who files a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., but fails, cannot move the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.Bar contained under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., would....
For maintaining a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arraigning of the company as an accused is imperative. The person in charge of the company cannot be held liable if ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
