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

2023 Supreme(All) 2144

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anil Kumar Mishra.

Table of Content
1. order quashed due to complainant's absence. (Para 2 , 3)
2. inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked when appeal remedy exists. (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
3. petition dismissed for lack of maintainability. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed to quash the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 6600 of 2016 ( Sunil Kumar vs. Amit Kumar ), under Section 138 NI Act, Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut.

3. In the above noted criminal complaint case under Section 138 NI Act when applicant complainant did not appear on 10.11.2022 the trial court considering the fact that the complaint was pending since 02.09.2016, the statement of the accused had been recorded on 08.10.2021 but since then complainant had not filed any affidavit as evidence and was not attending the court from the past several dates, even last opportunity was provided to him even then he neither appeared nor moved any application, the trial court dismissed

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