Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SUKHNA ENTERPRISES & ANR versus M/S WALIA CEMENT STORE

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Sukhna Enterprises & Anr v. M/s Walia Cement Store - CRM-32176-M-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 965 (29 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.M. No.32176-M of 2006.

Date of Decision: 30.1.2007.

M/s Sukhna Enterprises and another

....Petitioners.

Versus

M/s Walia Cement Store

...Respondent.

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant.
Present:- Mr.Vikas Negi,Advocate with

Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr.S.K.Jain, Advocate

for the respondent.

****

SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL)

In these petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek quashing of Criminal Complaint Nos.54 and 55 dated 4.7.2000 (Annexure P-1) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as also the summoning order dated 1.7.2003 passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura (Annexure P- 2).

The afore-mentioned relief has been sought mainly on the ground that there was a compromise between the parties on 17th June 2000

and in terms thereof the agreement (Annexure-P3) of the even date was executed.

In response to the notice of motion, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, vehemently denies that any compromise between the parties has taken place. It is the case of the respondent that no amount has been received from the petitioners so far.

In view of the above noticed seriously disputed questions of fact, I am afraid that the desired relief cannot be granted to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners then contends that having regard to the nature of proceedings, petitioner No.2 may be granted exemption from personal appearance.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties in the light of the contentions noticed above, 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 the appropriate stage and the same shall be gone into in accordance with law.

(ii)Petitioner No.2, if so desires, may move an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate for granting him exemption from personal appearance and if any such application is moved by him, the learned Judicial Magistrate may grant exemption from personal appearance, however, subject to the following conditions: a) the petitioner No.2 shall be represented by a counsel before learned Judicial Magistrate; (b) he shall not dispute his identity as accused; (c) he will have no objection if the evidence is recorded in his absence; (d) he shall come present before the learned trial Court as and when required

nd (e) he shall also comply with any other condition (s) that may be imposed by the learned trial Court.

Disposed of.

(SURYA KANT)

January 30 ,2007. JUDGE

Reema


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.