Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rashmi Sharma v. Vikram Vashishta - COCP-1378-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8677 (16 October 2006)

COCP No.1378 of 2006. ::-1-::


C.O.C.P. No. 1378 of 2006.

Date of Decision: October 16,2006.

Rashmi Sharma



Mr.Nitesh Bhardwaj, Advocate


Vikram Vashishta




1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL)

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the petitioner by the respondent. Seeking quashing of the said complaint, the petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No.10289-M of 2006 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. It appears that in the said petition, the petitioner agreed to make payment of the due amount.

Accordingly, she brought a demand draft in the sum of Rs.1,18,200/- which was accepted by the respondent in the Court on 23.5.2006. He, however, agreed to withdraw the complaint only if the petitioner would come present and at least tender an apology for the alleged harassment caused to him In deference to the observations made by this Court, the petitioner did appear and tendered an oral apology and also paid another COCP No.1378 of 2006. ::-2-::

sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs to the respondent and in this view of the matter, this Court vide order dated 29.5.2006 accepted her petition. The complaint and the proceedings arising out of the complaint were accordingly quashed.

As it appears, certified copy of the aforementioned order dated 29.5.2006 was not produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari where the complaint was pending. Alleging that the respondent, despite quashing of the aforementioned complaint, has got issued non- bailable warrants against the petitioner, this contempt petition has been filed.

From the allegations and counter-allegations, it is apparent that the parties are proceeding against each other in a vindictive manner. The Court's time can not be permitted to be taxed or wasted like this. At the same time, when this Court has already quashed the proceedings, the petitioner is entitled to the consequential benefit and protection of the said order.

Consequently, and in view of the fact that the 'criminal complaint' has already been quashed by this Court, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) operation of the non- bailable warrants, if any, issued against the petitioner is stayed forthwith; ii) in view of the order dated 29.5.2006 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No.10289-M of 2006, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, is directed to formally close the proceedings in the `Criminal complaint' and pass a formal order to this effect;

COCP No.1378 of 2006. ::-3-::

iii) the aforesaid action shall be taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari even if the petitioner does not appear in person and any body else and/or her counsel appears and produces a certified copy of this order before him.

Disposed of.

Dasti on usual charges.

October 16, 2006. ( SURYA KANT )

dinesh JUDGE


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.