Petitioner sought quashing of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act alleging no grounds for interference at the stage where trial court was recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Petition for quashing was dismissed; petitioner free to take up pleas in defence.
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.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M- 11288 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.7.2010
Bhavesh Rajai
......Petitioner
Versus
Amit Kalra
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Ms.Poonam Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint bearing No.104/2 dated 15.3.2008 titled as 'Amit Kalra vs. Bhavesh Harjai' under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana.
During the course of arguments, it transpired that now the complaint case is listed before the trial Court for recording of the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, no ground for interference at this stage by this Court is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner would be free to take up all the pleas available to him in his defence.
(SABINA) JUDGE
July 07, 2010 anita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should quash the criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act at the stage when the record was ready for recording the petitioner's statement.
Whether any ground for judicial interference existed when the trial court was recording the petitioner's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhavesh Rajai
Amit Kalra
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
