Petitioner filed petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a 2016 summoning order in a cheque bounce case. The Court noted the delay and rejected the petition, noting the availability of alternative remedies, dispensing with a full hearing.
Petitions dismissed; liberty given to approach the appropriate forum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~23 to 26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2024 at 12:13:37
.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Upadhyay, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Mr. Gaurav Raghav, Advocates
versus
KAMAL KAPOOR
.....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R % 04.09.2024
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
SEPTEMBER 4, 2024/PT
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2024 at 12:13:37
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order in a cheque bounce case should be entertained given the delay.
Whether the petitioner can approach the Revisional Court as an alternative remedy after a long delay.
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash the summoning order dated 2016.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nitin Chawla
Neelam Kapoor
Raj Tilak Kapoor
Bharti Harjai
Kamal Kapoor
Neena Bansal Krishna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
