Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court should exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the summoning order at the stage when notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had not yet been framed.
Analysis: In a summons-case complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court held that the petitioners' objections were better raised before the trial court at the stage of consideration of notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court relied on the principle that, where the trial has not yet reached the stage of framing notice, the accused should ordinarily approach the trial court with the relevant objections, and the trial court should decide them by a speaking order without the High Court pre-empting that process under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Conclusion: The quashing petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the trial court to raise the objections at the appropriate stage.
Ratio Decidendi: In a summons-case complaint, where notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not yet been framed, the accused should ordinarily first raise jurisdictional and related objections before the trial court rather than invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.