Anil Kumar v. Princy
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner challenged an order summoning a bank clerk under Section 311 CrPC to clarify loan transfer details in a cheque bounce case. The High Court upheld the order as essential for just decision and not setting up a new case.
What did the court decide?
Dismissing the petition, the Court upheld the impugned order summoning the bank clerk and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner for delay.
What the court decided
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- % Date of order: 2nd December, 2024
- CRL.M.C. 1593/2024 & CRL.M.A. 6194/2024 & CRL.M.A. 6195/2024
ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravin Rao, Mr. Pallav Gupta, Mr. Akshit Sawal, Mr. Ayan Sharma and Mr. Yashasvi Yadav, Advocates
versus
PRINCY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajni Gupta and Mr. Shivender Gupta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
- The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) [now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”)] has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 22nd December, 2023 (hereinafter “impugned order”) passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01 (NI Act), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter “learned MM”) in Ct. Cases 2341/2020.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside the lower court's order summoning a bank clerk as a witness under Section 311 CrPC.
Whether the additional evidence sought at a later stage constituted setting up a new case or merely clarified the mode of payment.
Whether the exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC was arbitrary and prejudicial to the accused.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
ANIL KUMAR
- respondent
PRINCY
Coram
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court