Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Rajesh Kumar Mishra @ Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of Jhrakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
2. By order dated 18.06.2019 notice was issued upon the O.P. No. 2 and in the meantime interim order was provided. In the order dated 13.07.2021 it has been recorded that notice upon the O.P. No. 2 has been served which has been received personally by O.P. No. 2 and in anticipation of the appearance of the O.P. No. 2, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. The matter was again taken on 08.09.2021 and on request, the matter was adjourned for 30.09.2021. On 30.09.2021, again the O.P. No. 2 has not responded and inspite of repeated call and with a view to provide further more opportunity, the matter was adjourned for 09.12.2021. The same was the position on 09.12.2021. Much opportunity was provided in view of these orders to the O.P. No. 2 to appear and make out the case on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and inspite of that, nobody has responded on behalf of the O
The main legal point established is that the lack of specific allegations against the petitioner and comparison with similar cases can be grounds for quashing a cognizance order.
The court has the discretion to set aside previous orders and restore a complaint case with conditions in the interest of justice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of law and the lack of judicial application in taking cognizance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that repossession of vehicles must be conducted through legal means and not by force, as emphasized in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur ....
The court can quash criminal proceedings if it finds that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.
The court's decision reaffirms the principle that the High Court may exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings only in cases of malicious prosecution, based on the fa....
The court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings when the parties have settled the dispute and the amount in question has been paid as full and final settlement.
The principle of double jeopardy and its application in determining the redundancy of a complaint case when the same cause of action has been resolved in a previous case.
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
