- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 25 August 2010
- Bench
- Shiv Narayan Dhingra
- Case no.
- CRL.M.C. 2737/2010
Judgment
{ s^29 * IN TI-III, IIIGII COIJITT OT' + Crl. M.C. No.273712010 RAKESI{WAR PRASAD I{AI 'l'hrorrgh: VCTSUS HCL IN}]OSYS1'I]M S I,'f D. DEI,III AT NEW DELIII M r. Pankaj s in gh, ;;;"t":l'::""t' T ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICII SHIV NAI{AYAN DIIINGIIA ollDllll "
25.08.2010 This petition has bccn fitcd for quashing of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 'l'hc cotlrse opcn to the petitioner is to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate, take noticc under Section25l Cr'P'C' and give his defence in writing to thc coutl of Metropolitan Magistrate as to why he should not have been surnmoned or why hc was not liablc to pay the cheque amount' The proceedings r"rndcr scction 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are Summary trial procccdings and canuot be allorved to be dragged by entertaining this kind of Pctitions. 'l'his pctition is not maintainablc in view of judgrnent of this court in criminat M.c. No.1996 o-f 2010 titlcd llajesh Agganval vs. state & Anr. dated 27tt' July,2010 .'fhe pctitiorr is disrnisscd as such' ,II I htL , slrv NArtyrd:N DHINGRA, J. AUGUST 25,2010 .AA' e O Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.