Full Text
Translation output
V
$-47 & 48 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3750/2012
GULUBCHAND DEVICHAND JAIN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate
$-47 & 48 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3750/2012
GULUBCHAND DEVICHAND JAIN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
ADESH TYAGI
Respondent
Through: Mr. M.K. Vashisht, Advocate for respondent
Respondent
Through: Mr. M.K. Vashisht, Advocate for respondent
CRL.M.C. 3751/2012
GULABCHAND DEVICHAND JAIN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate
GULABCHAND DEVICHAND JAIN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
ADESH TYAGI
Respondent
Through: Mr. M.K. Vashisht, Advocate for respondent
Respondent
Through: Mr. M.K. Vashisht, Advocate for respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
14.05.2013 By the above captioned two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.
P.C., petitioner is seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. 537/01 of 2012
2013:DHC:7710 J V by Crl.M.C. No. 3750/2012 and of complaint case No.536/01 of 2012 by
Crl.M.C. No. 3751/2012 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the said Court.
After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw these petitions reserving his rights to take all objections regarding territorial jurisdiction before the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate at the first instance.
Reserving the aforesaid liberty, both these petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J MAY 14, 2013 pkb 2013:DHC:7710
14.05.2013 By the above captioned two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.
P.C., petitioner is seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. 537/01 of 2012
2013:DHC:7710 J V by Crl.M.C. No. 3750/2012 and of complaint case No.536/01 of 2012 by
Crl.M.C. No. 3751/2012 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the said Court.
After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw these petitions reserving his rights to take all objections regarding territorial jurisdiction before the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate at the first instance.
Reserving the aforesaid liberty, both these petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J MAY 14, 2013 pkb 2013:DHC:7710
JUDGMENT