Dismissed
Anju Jain v. Ajay Kapoor
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/15349/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.…
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-15349 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 25, 2013.
Anju Jain
.......PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
Ajay Kapoor
.....RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Sanjay K. Guevera, Advocate for Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner (s).
Respondent in person with Mr. Inderpal Singh Parmar, Advocate.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal complaint No.336/2 dated 23.3.2012 (Annexure P-1) titled “Ajay Kapoor Proprietor of M/s Sudhir Trading Company Vs. Anju Jain” under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana and summoning order dated 23.3.2012 (Annexure P-2).
It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent that dispute has since been settled and that some of the complaints have been withdrawn by him and if any other complaint is pending, he would withdraw the same.
In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition as the same has become infructuous.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 25, 2013. JUDGE
Sachin M.
Mehta Sachin 2013.10.28 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anju Jain
Ajay Kapoor
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court