D.G.R.PATNAIK
Uma Shankar Gopalka – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.
2. From the office report it appears that though the Opposite Party No. 2 has received the notice' issued to him and has filed his appearance through lawyer, but in spite of repeated calls, both today as also on the last date, no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 to offer any contest.
3. From the facts stated by the counsel for the petitioner, it appears that a complaint was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 before the court below and on the basis of the statement containing certain allegations, the learned court below took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The admitted facts of the case as per the complaint of the Opposite Party No. 2 is that the petitioner happens to be a financier. The Opposite Party No. 2 had obtained a loan of Rs. 6 lakhs from the petitioner for the purchase of a Trailer. The Trailer was purchased with the amount borrowed from the petitioner and the same was registered in the State of Haryana. A hire-purchase agreement was drawn up and in terms of the agreement, the complainant/borrower was required to repay the loan amo
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.