TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable before the Court and whether the summoning order and criminal complaint proceedings deserved to be quashed.
Analysis: The allegations in the complaint were not confined to the place of auction purchase alone, but formed part of a wider pattern involving alleged illegal mining, creation of sham entities, routing of illicit gains, and purchase of sugar mills situated in different districts of Uttar Pradesh. On that basis, the cause of action was treated as spread across several places within Uttar Pradesh, and the seat of the trial court at Delhi was held not to exclude the Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the merits, the Court found that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case, the summoning order was based on material collected during investigation, and the disputed factual issues required scrutiny by the trial court rather than a roving inquiry under Section 482.
Conclusion: The application was maintainable before the Court, but no ground was made out to interfere with the summoning order or to quash the proceedings; the prayer for quashment was refused.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
