Dismissed

Gurpreet Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2009CRM-M/14863/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition invoking inherent jurisdiction to recover cheques and a no objection certificate from the respondent Company. The court found the petition infructuous after the cheques were handed over to the petitioner's counsel in court, satisfying the petitioner's grievance.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous by the court order.

Gurpreet Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.27521 of 2009 and CRM-M-14863 of 2009

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

Crl. Misc. No.27521 of 2009 and CRM-M-14863 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 19.11.2009 ****

Gurpeet Sharma

. . . . Petitioner

VS.

State of Punjab and others

¶10

. . . Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶13

****

¶14

Present: Mr.P.K. S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG, Punjab

¶16

for the State/respondents No.1 to 2.

¶17

Mr.Y.P.Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶18

¶19

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL)

¶20

The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) primarily for the recovery of cheques, taken as a security and ‘no objection certificate’ from the Company (respondent No.3).

¶21

It is submitted, that a statement was made by Sh.Rajiv Jindal, Legal Officer of the Company (respondent No.3) before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda that he would be bound to return the cheques, taken as security, and NOC, to Gurpreet Sharma, after collecting them from the Head office. The above-said statement

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.27521 of 2009 and CRM-M-14863 of 2009

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

was made on 29.1.2009, but so far the alleged cheques, given as a security, and NOC have not been returned.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that NOC has already been given on the basis of which, the petitioner has already sold the vehicle, which was alleged to have been taken in possessionby the Company (respondent No.3). Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the NOC is over. The only grievance left is with regard to the return of the cheques, which were given towards security.

¶26

At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has handed over the cancelled cheques to the counsel for the petitioner in the Court. This satisfies the petitioner as his entire grievance is over and as such the present petition has become infructuous.

¶27

Dismissed as infructuous.

¶28

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

¶29

NOVEMBER 19, 2009 Vivek

Gurpreet Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Hardev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Anil Sehajpal Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ghoki @ Gurpiar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Anil Sehajpal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.