Full Text
Translation output
r- $--13 & 14 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 2715/2012 & Cri.M.A.No.13705/2012
P K DIXIT Petitioner
Through; Mr. SurendraKumar, Advocate
P K DIXIT Petitioner
Through; Mr. SurendraKumar, Advocate
VERSUS
ANURAG SINGHAL Respondent
Through: Mr. Ravindra Kumar Pandey &Mr. Lalit Mathur, Advocates
(ii) CRL.M.C. 2716/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.13708/2012
P K DIXIT Petitioner
Through: Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate
Through: Mr. Ravindra Kumar Pandey &Mr. Lalit Mathur, Advocates
(ii) CRL.M.C. 2716/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.13708/2012
P K DIXIT Petitioner
Through: Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
ANURAG SINGHAL Respondent
Through: Mr. Ravindra Kumar Pandey &Mr. Lalit Mathur, Advocates
Through: Mr. Ravindra Kumar Pandey &Mr. Lalit Mathur, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
08.10.2013 In the above captioned petitions, quashing of CO No.4441 and 4442 of 2011 (new CC No.8480 & 8481 of 2012) titled Naresh Sharma (SPA of
Anurag Singhal) v. P.KDixit for commission of offences under Section 138 ofNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on merits.
At the hearing, it was disclosed by learned counsel for parties that after framing of Notice under Section251 Cr.P.C., respondent-complainant is under cross-examination. The object of summary trial in proceedings
Crl.M.C.Nos.2715 & 2716 of 2012 Page 1 2013:DHC:7766
/ •
, f V> under Section 138 ofNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would be lost if this
Court entertains such petitions on merits especially when recording of evidence is in progress. The plea of limitation raised by learned counsel for petitioner is a mixed plea of facts and law and so it needs to be determined at trial.
In the facts and circumstances of these cases, both these petitions are disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits of this case, with liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
Both the petitions and applications stand disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 08, 2013 vn Crl.M.C.Nos.2715 &2716of2012 Page 2
2013:DHC:7766
08.10.2013 In the above captioned petitions, quashing of CO No.4441 and 4442 of 2011 (new CC No.8480 & 8481 of 2012) titled Naresh Sharma (SPA of
Anurag Singhal) v. P.KDixit for commission of offences under Section 138 ofNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on merits.
At the hearing, it was disclosed by learned counsel for parties that after framing of Notice under Section251 Cr.P.C., respondent-complainant is under cross-examination. The object of summary trial in proceedings
Crl.M.C.Nos.2715 & 2716 of 2012 Page 1 2013:DHC:7766
/ •
, f V> under Section 138 ofNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would be lost if this
Court entertains such petitions on merits especially when recording of evidence is in progress. The plea of limitation raised by learned counsel for petitioner is a mixed plea of facts and law and so it needs to be determined at trial.
In the facts and circumstances of these cases, both these petitions are disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits of this case, with liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
Both the petitions and applications stand disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 08, 2013 vn Crl.M.C.Nos.2715 &2716of2012 Page 2
2013:DHC:7766
JUDGMENT