TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court overturns trial court's decision quashing criminal complaint</h1> <h3>R. Vijay Kumar Versus M/s IFCI Factors Limited & Ors.</h3> The High Court set aside the trial court's orders quashing a criminal complaint and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., directing the trial court to issue a ... Dishonor of Cheque - statutory notice has been issued against the petitioner or not - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has raised the pleas, on the basis of which, Ld. MM was directed to pass a reasoned order. Both the orders passed by the Ld. MM on 3.9.2019 shows total non-application of mind and are passed in total disregard to the order passed by this Court on 15.4.2014. Therefore, both the orders dated 3.9.2019 are set aside qua petitioner/accused no.2 and Ld. MM is directed to comply with the order dated 15.4.2014 passed by this Court and pass a reasoned order afresh, within eight weeks, dealing with all pleas raised by the petitioner/accused no.2. Petition disposed off. Issues:Quashing of criminal complaint and consequent notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.Analysis:The petitioner sought to quash a criminal complaint and the consequent notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court had not issued a statutory notice against the petitioner, the petitioner was not a signatory to the relevant cheque, and there were no averments against the petitioner in the complaint. The counsel contended that the order dated 3.9.2019 was cryptic and did not address the petitioner's pleas raised in a previous writ petition. The High Court examined the previous order dated 15.4.2014, which directed the trial court to provide a reasoned order on the petitioner's pleas. The High Court found that the trial court's orders on 3.9.2019 lacked proper consideration and were not in line with the High Court's directions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the orders dated 3.9.2019 and directed the trial court to comply with the 2014 order, passing a reasoned order within eight weeks that addressed all the petitioner's raised pleas.In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition with the aforementioned directions, emphasizing the importance of the trial court's compliance with the High Court's previous order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
