Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PARVEEN KUMAR GOEL & ANR. versus ARVIND KUMAR & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Parveen Kumar Goel & Anr. v. Arvind Kumar & Ors. - CRM-66416-M-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 175 (9 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No. 66416-M of 2006.

Date of Decision: January 17, 2007.

Parveen Kumar Goel & Anr.

....Petitioners

through

Mr. C.S.Pasricha, Advocate

Versus

Arvind Kumar & Ors.

...Respondents

through

Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate,

for respondent No.1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

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)

In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing of the order dated 5.8.2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Section 406 read with Section 120-B IPC in Criminal Complaint No.285/1 of 2005, is sought.

The controversy in the Criminal Complaint pertains to whether or not the deceased father of the complainant had entrusted the disputed shares to accused No. 1 and 2 for their disposal through the proprietorship firm M/s Samta Purchaser/Seller and as to whether those shares have been transferred in the name of the petitioners allegedly in collusion; connivance and criminal conspiracy.

Criminal Misc. No.3384-M of 2006. ::-2-:: Various contentions have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the prayer made in this petition. However, having regard to the seriously disputed questions of fact, which would necessarily require evidence on record for arriving at a definite conclusion in relation thereto, and also keeping in view the fact that petitioner No.1 is a Bank official and petitioner No.2 is a practising lawyer at Ambala, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- i) the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas before the learned trial Court at an appropriate stage and the same shall be considered in accordance with law; ii) the petitioners may, if so advised, seek their exemption from personal appearance by moving an appropriate application before the learned trial Court and if any such application is moved, they shall be granted exemption by the learned trial Court, however, subject to the conditions that (i) the petitioners shall be represented by a counsel before learned Judicial Magistrate; (ii) the petitioners shall not dispute their identity as accused; (iii) they shall have no objection if the evidence is recorded in their absence; (iv) they shall come present before the learned trial Court as and when required and (v) they shall comply with any other condition (s) that may be imposed by the learned trial Court.

iii) If the petitioners have not put in appearance before the learned trial Court, they are directed to surrender on or before the adjourned date and furnish the requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, upon which they shall be admitted to bail.

Disposed of.

January 17, 2007. ( SURYA KANT )

dinesh JUDGE


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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