M/S Baseline Petroleum Ltd v. State Of Bihar & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Permission is accorded and this petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 160
Judgment
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shraban Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv. For the CBI : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the Informant P.N.B : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, No.1, Adv.. ================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13 13-08-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the CBI and for the PNB. In this case, petitioner is making a prayer for quashing the FIR of R.C. No. 0015 date d 27th July 2012 registered for the offences u/s 120B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)© & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. After some argument, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Permission is accorded and this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the points at the appropriate stage. Counsel for the CBI has submitted that even after notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C petitioner is not co-operating with investigation. The CBI will have liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Permission is accorded and this petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 160.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 27 Jul 2012. The bench was SHIVAJI PANDEY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.