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

2014 Supreme(MP) 906

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA
Sonali Thanawala – Appellant
Versus
Rahul Ginning Industries – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :R.S. Laad, Advocate
For the Respondents: None

Judgment:

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10-9-08 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner as also the order dated 22-1-09 rejecting the prayer for review of the said order. In brief, respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court on 10-9-08 had heard the arguments of respondent No. 1 on the question of registering the complaint and had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an application for deleting Her name from the array of the parties but the said application was rejected by order dated 22-1-2009 on the ground that after taking the cognizance under Section204 of Cr.P.C., there is no power with the Magistrate to review the said order.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the complaint and that the petitioner has unnecessarily been added in the complaint on



















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