INDRANI DATTA
Mohan Mandelia – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
Indrani Datta, J.
1. This common order shall govern the disposal of M.Cr.C. No. 2853/2008 (Mohan Mandelia v. State of M.P. and Anr.) and M.Cr.C. No. 3234/2008 (Sant Kumar Sharma v. Rakesh Yadav and Anr.) as they arise out of same order dated 04.02.2008 passed by the learned JMFC Gwalior; whereby, on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 Rakesh Yadav, cognizance has been taken against the Petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity "Act") and under Sections 417, 418, 420, 466, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.
2. Facts in compendium are that Respondent Rakesh filed a complaint against the Petitioners under Section 138 of Act and Sections 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. As per averments of complaint, Petitioner Mohan Mandelia and accused Beena Mandelia are doing business of making cartons and business is run in the name of GNTV. There was cordial relationship between complainant and Petitioner Mohan. Complainant used to give loan to Petitioner Mohan and his wife accused Beena from time to time and they used to return the said amount to complainant. It is further averred that from the year 2005 to July 2007 on various occasions Rs. 5 lac two times, R
2. R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 516;
3. Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 439;
5. Hiralal and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 89;
7. Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 1;
12. M.N. Ojha and Ors. v. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682;
6. Dalip Kaur and Ors. v. Jagnar Singh and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 696;
11. Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 251;
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.