Jeevesh
23 August 2014 at 11:25
As per the recent SC judgement dt. 01/08/2014, the jurisdiction to file the cheque bounce case would be at the place where drawer bank is situated.
Facts of my case - In my case i filed complaint at Hisar, Haryana under s.138 NI act against 4 persons in the year 2012 regarding a cheque drawn up a delhi. Out of the 4 accused only 2 were summoned u/s 204 Cr.P.C & other 2 were not summoned. After the summoning of the two accused, my post summoning complainant evidence commenced. In around January 2014, the court also summoned other two accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C on the basis of new evidence who were earlier not summoned u/s 204 Cr.P.C. These newly summoned 2 accused persons challenged there summoning in High Court and took stay of proceedings qua them. Their petition is presently pending.
The Trial against the other two already summoned accused is continuing and uptill 1st August 2014, two complainant witnesses have been chief examined and cross examined by these originally summoned two accused persons.
My Query - My query is that if the summoning of the newly arraigned 2 accused persons is upheld by High Court u/s 319 Cr.P.C, than it will be de novo trail qua them (i.e. already examined witnessess need to re examined qua these new accused's). Than would my case be hit by the Recent SC judgment dt. 01/08/2014 & transferred to Delhi in the face of the fact that the two witnessess have already been chief examined and cross examined uptill 01/08/2014 at post summoning stage by the originally summoned accused persons.
Jeevesh
01 May 2013 at 08:33
Ld. Experts,
A peculiar problem is before me in an criminal case dealt by me. In the case i represent the prosecution. Defense has moved an application u/s 91 Cr.P.C for production of certain record from sales tax department. That application has been allowed and the concerned person from the sales tax department has also brought the asked record. Now the defense counsel wants to examine the concerned person on oath and wants to get the asked record exhibited.
My query is whether i can cross examine the concerned person from sales tax office in view of the restriction placed by S.139 Evidence Act wherein it has been said that a person merely producing the document is not a witness and is not subject to cross examination. My counter argument would be that the concerned person is not only producing documents but is also exhibiting them on oath and he therefore becomes a witness and therefore would be subject to cross examination.
Please comment on the tenability of my argument?
sk..........
01 May 2013 at 08:03
In civil suit for mandatory injunction under which section or order /rule should i file replication pl. advice
Ajay Bansal
28 April 2013 at 08:50
My client took a loan of Rs. 250000/- from Axis Bank, Hisar on 6.12.2007. At that time Bank took his 10 singed blank cheques. In 2010 one of said cheque has been misused by Bank and got it bounced and file a complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act. My client through me started defending himself on ground of all aforesaid position. Bank denied that it took any signed blank cheque on 6.12.2007. Now Bank has used another cheque of my client and got it bounced on 3.1.2013 and then filed another complaint on this second cheque. Now I say when my previous cheque's litigation os pending in court, so how can I issued another cheque to Bank, because first of all I would got compromise in pending case then I could issue second cheque. Kindly advice me whether I have a proper defence.
Jeevesh
21 January 2013 at 09:14
Learned Experts,
I am faced with a peculiar problem which is as follows:
FACTS - An offense u/s 498A IPC took place on 04/08/2002. Complainant filed the complaint with police regarding the aforesaid offense on 02/07/2005. On the same day the police commenced the investigation by registering the FIR. The charge-sheet was filed by police on 22/03/2008. The cognizance was taken by the magistrate on 14/01/2009.
Presently, the case is at the stage of framing of charge. I, representing the accused, has raised the plea that the order of cognizance dated 14/01/2009 taking cognizance of offense dated 04/08/2002 is time barred as per Ss.468/469 Cr.P.C, as the same was taken 3 years after the date of commission of offense. The Complainant’s counsel opposes my plea by saying that the complainant had filed the complaint with police on 02/07/2005 i.e. within 3 years of the offense & the complainant is not responsible for whatever delay took place after the filing of complaint with police.
How much tenable is the argument of complainant’s counsel?
Arvind Singh Chauhan
21 September 2012 at 08:33
Accused was punished under 332,353 IPC. Appeal is pending in Session court. Complainant/ victim is ready to compromise.
Now how is it possible as 311 Cr.P.C clearly says the word trial. Whether word trial includes appeal.
Please suggest the remedy except 482 Cr.P.C, as party is very poor.
Sir please refer case law or provision if any.
Member (Account Deleted)
18 September 2012 at 20:23
Learned experts before framing the question i would like to bring forth the provisions u/s 51 & 58 of CPC:-
the proviso to sec.51 clearly says that where the decree is for the "payment of money", execution of detention shall not be ordered - "however such order may be passed" if certain requirements are satisfied(requirements are given in the section).
Now "section 58" provides us with provisions of "arrest and detention" in case the decree is payment of money. The section is, however, silent about any requirements which should be fulfilled in order to pass such arrest.
Now the question is:-
"Shall we presume that the orders of arrest and detention passed u/s 58 of CPC are subject to the fulfillment of requirements contained u/s 51?
And that, if any orders are to be passed u/s 58 they have to first fulfill the requirements of section 51 first only then order u/s 58 could be made".
basavaraj shiromani
18 September 2012 at 19:15
Sir,
A muslim lady was owned a house in her name. she was giving it to the different tenants on hire. property was stading in her name. Subsequently in the year 1990 a third person called as B had got entered his name on the strength of an registered exchange deed as if he exchanged his properties to the son of muslim lady by name C. But no property belongs to B was transfrred in the name of muslim lady or in the name of her son.
Now she filed a suit for declaration, declaring that she is the owner of the suit house. She is also claimed a consequential relief of injunction and an alternative relief of possession, if the court found not to be in possession etc.
what are the legal consequences. in this case ?
P.Parthasarathi
18 September 2012 at 18:36
My client is a partnership firm deriving income from Poultry farming. With effect from the assessment year they have leased out their business to another firm alongwith the building, the cages for keeping the birds etc. The building is surrounded by land with coconut plantation of which there was no mention in the lease deed. The lesser firm enjoyed the yield from the trees and disclosed the agricultural income in their return. The AO did not accept the agr. income on the ground that since the entire premises have been leased out, it automatically means that the trees have also been leased out and no income could be derived from the trees by the lessor firm. The assessment has been appealed against. In appeal it is being contested that since no specific mention has been made about the trees in the lease deed it automatically means that the right to enjoy the yield is retained with the original land loard, i.e. the lessor firm. Kindly give me knowledge of any case laws on in this regard.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise in delhi high court
Ld. Experts,
I have to prepare and file a quashing petition in Delhi High Court on the basis of compromise. It is my personal matter of my near relative u/s 498A/406 IPC. My query is to the Ld. Experts who practice at Delhi.
1. Whether a joint petition has to be filed by the accused & complainant or the complainant is to be impleaded as respondent.
2. Can any of the ld. Experts provide me with a soft copy of the draft of quashing petition on the basis of compromise. Kindly mail the same to me at my maild id : jeeveshbindal@gmail.com