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

2006 Supreme(All) 2476

VINOD PRASAD
DEEPAK KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Manu Yadav and I.M. Khan for the Applicants; Nitin Gupta, A.G.A. for the Opposite Parties.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—A couple, Deepak Kumar and Smt. Nirmala, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C.(hereinafter referred to as the Code) and have preferred this criminal Misc. Application No. 7056 of 2005, with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 16.9.04, by which the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) Ghaziabad has summoned them for committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in complaint case No. 7136 of 2004, Rajbir Singh v. Deepak Kumar and others. The ancillary prayer is for stay of the proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case pendente lite.

2. The encapsulated facts of the case, as is perceptible from the complaint (Annexure 4), filed by complainant Rajbir Singh respondent No. 2 are that the complainant is an employee of Air Force and Kishan Lal, father of the applicant No. 1 Deepak Kumar, was his neighbour and was sewing as a civil defence personnel. Applicant No. 2 Smt. Nirmala is the wife of Deepak Kumar. Being neighbour and persons connected with defence a close friendship and intimacy developed between the applicants and the complainant. As a




















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