Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
SHRI AMIT JAIN – Appellant
Versus
M/S. MURTI UDYOG LIMITED – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments concerning the summoning order's validity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. contentions by respondent regarding fraudulent intent. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 4. court analysis on non-payment not constituting a crime. (Para 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. legal standards for establishing dishonest intent. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. lack of specific threats undermines the intimidation claim. (Para 38 , 39) |
| 7. final judgment to quash criminal proceedings. (Para 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) on behalf of the Petitioners seeking quashing of thesummoning Order dated 29.01.2015, whereby Ld. MM summonedPetitioner No.1/Sh. Amit Jain for offences under Sections 420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) andPetitioner No.2/Sh. Nimit Jain for the offence under Section 506 , in CC No. 77/4/14 titled, “Murti Udyog Ltd. vs. Sh.Amit Jain and Ors.” and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1 was the sole propri
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
