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

2014 Supreme(UK) 372

U.C.DHYANI
Surinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Atik Ahmad – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Shri Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

Judgment

By means of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the summoning order dated 11.09.2013, as also entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 2030 of 2013, Atik Ahmad vs Surinder Singh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate I, Vikasnagar, Dehradun.

2. A perusal of the complaint filed by Atik Ahmed (respondent herein) against Surinder Singh (applicant herein) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, reveals that Surinder Singh alone was made party in the criminal complaint case, and not his company, whereas the fact of the matter is that the cheque was issued by Surender Singh in the capacity of Managing Director of MAPEX India (P) Ltd.. In such a situation, MAPEX India (P) Ltd. also ought to have been arrayed as accused alongwith Surinder Singh. In a way, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Anil Gupta vs Star India Pvt. Ltd. and another, decided on 07.07.2014 in support of his contention. Paragraph no. 14 of said judgment is being reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

"14. Agai








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