ROHIT SINGHAL Vs. AASHI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interesting issue which crops up for consideration in the present C-482 application is, that in a proceedings which were drawn under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C. by the present applicant, the notices were issued to the opposite party on his application. The order of issuance of notices by the court exercising the judicial powers of adjudicating the proceedings under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C., is exclusively for the purposes of ensuring to provide an opportunity of hearing, to the person concerned against whom the action is proposed to be taken under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The opposite party had put in appearance before the court below in the proceedings of Civil Misc. Application No. 183 of 2021 Rohit Singhal vs. Smt. Aashi Gupta. On the appearance of the opposite party, the objection has already been filed and it was that during the pendency of those proceedings, the present applicant had filed an application i.e. Paper No. 10 Ka. In the application thus filed by the present applicant Paper No. 10 Ka, in fact the relief, which was sought by the present applicant was under an apprehended notion, so that an impediment may be created, so that in the proceedings under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C. the opposite party who had already respondent to the notices, may not be heard and that is why the relief was modulated to the following effect:-

(3.) In fact nature of relief as extracted above if it is scrutinized, in fact it was of a nature of seeking a judicial restraint, against an opposite party, who has been earlier noticed, not to be heard in future in the proceedings under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C. for which notices were already issued to him.