REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

DEVENDER SINGH Appellant

V/S

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HARNAM KAUR VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CBI VS. B.RAJAGOPAL AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY GOEL VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
R.P.GULATI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
NEELU GUPTA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
JUGAL KISHORE SHARMA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA VS. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJTRAO ANGRE [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SPE SIU X NEW DELHI VS. DUNCANS AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
B S JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
KULWINDER SINGH LADDI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHANANA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
CHAIN SUKH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
B K SONDHI VS. STATE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK BHARDWAJ VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI AGARWAL VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
D C SINGHAM VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
G UDAYAN DRAVID VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTRODUCTION

(2.) THESE three cases involve a common question of law concerning the scope of the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('crpc)to quash the criminal proceedings where the offences involved include that of forgery and use of forged documents as defined under sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal code ('ipc ). In each of these petitions filed by the accused, the quashing of the proceedings is sought on the basis that their disputes with the complainants have been settled. This plea is opposed by the prosecution on the ground that there is evidence in each of the cases in the form of a report by the Forensic Science Laboratory ('fsl') to prove the offences independent of the evidence of the complaint. It is urged that the powers of this Court under Section 482 Crpc should not be used to quash the proceedings involving such non-compoundable offences.

(3.) THE facts relevant for this petition are that a consultancy and advisory service agreement was entered into on 1st August, 1999 between Ashok Kumar Gautam, the complainant/respondent No. 2 with M/s darpan Engineering Services, a consultancy firm of the Petitioner/accused Rajesh Trivedi. Two post-dated cheques, No. 131122 in the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and No. 131124 in the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs, both dated 15th February 2000, issued by the complainant in favour of the accused were given as advance payment pursuant to the agreement.

Click here to view full judgment.

DEVENDER SINGH Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address