REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Bharat Kumar Jain And Ors. Appellant

V/S

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

WILLIE WILLIAM SLANEY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHAM SUNDER VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
FAKHRUDDIN AHMAD VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
R KALYANI VS. JANAK C MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
FAHIM KHAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
ANEETA HADA VS. GODFATHER TRAVELS ALIAS TOURS PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA GIRI VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
SARAH MATHEW VS. INSTITUTE OF CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASES BY ITS DIRECTOR K.M.CHERIAN [REFERRED TO]
GOA FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SANJAY [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI VS. SANGITA RANE [REFERRED TO]
MEHMOOD UL REHMAN AND ORS. VS. KHAZIR MOHAMMAD TUNDA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
K. SITARAM & ANR VS. CFL CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in the above petitions have sought to quash the charge sheet and the entire proceedings initiated against them for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 120B and 511 of IPC and Section 21 r/w Section 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short' M.M.D.R. Act').

(2.) The learned counsel for petitioners has raised the following contentions:

(3.) Meeting these arguments, the learned Special PP appearing for respondent would submit that petitioners in the above petitions are prosecuted in their individual capacity as well as partners of the Firm. Referring to paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Sunil Bharti Mittal's case the learned counsel would submit that alleged offences having been committed by the petitioners as partners of the relevant firm/company, petitioners are also liable to answer the said charges.

Click here to view full judgment.

BHARAT KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address