Back
NAVNEET KUMAR
Sandeep Ajmera – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The case was heard through video conferencing. None of the parties found any flaws with audibility/visibility during the course of hearing the matter.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Sahini is present and learned counsel for the State Mr. Sardhu Mahto is also present. None appears on behalf of O.P.no. 2 despite valid service of notice.
3. It appears from the record that on earlier occasion, the notice was issued to the O.P. No.2 on 23.08.2012, which was duly served upon him and acknowledgment with the signature of O.P. No.2 was also received, which is available on the record and thus by the previous order dated 31.07.2014, this court has treated that the notice has been duly served upon O.P. No.2, but nobody has appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Sahini and learned counsel for the State Mr. Sardhu Mahto.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Clas, Bermo at Tenu
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.
Prima facie evidence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was sufficient for the Trial Court to take cognizance and proceed with the case.
The power under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings should not be exercised when there is a disputed question of fact to be decided by the trial court.
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 upheld the trial court's decision to issue summons based on specific allegations of cheating and forgery, affirming the necessity of a prima facie case without quashing the proceedings.
The main legal point established is that the intention of cheating and non-payment under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code must be proven, and the dishonour of a cheque can lead to maintaina....
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
