Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Tirumala Devi Eada, J
R.R.M. Educational Society – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint details and context leading to the criminal petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments and counter-arguments regarding section 138 ni act applicability and quashing. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal analysis of vicarious liability provisions and judicial precedents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. court’s determination that disputed internal affairs are matters for trial. (Para 27 , 28) |
Between:
M/s.R.R.M. Educational Society
Rep. by its President & Secretary,
Mr.Kedari Joseph Sriharsha Shashank
and others … Petitioners/
Accused
AND
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
at Hyderabad and another … Respondents
::ORDER::
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5247 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) under PCR Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Hanumakonda, Hanumakonda District, registered for the offences under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant is that accused
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
