M/s. Raghav Madhav Associates v. DilipSingh
Case at a glance
- Bench
- T P SHARMA, RAGHAV MADHAV
Outcome
Allowed
Consequently, the petition is allowed and both the orders impugned are hereby
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 203, 398, 482
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Consequently, the petition is allowed and both the orders impugned are hereby quashed. The case is remitted back to the trial Court For making Further inquiry into the complaint dismissed under Section 203 oF the CrPC in terms of Section 398 oF the CrPC;
Judgment
through Proprietor Rajnish SethS/o. Shri Jagdish Gayal seth, aged about 38 Years, R/o. Kalpana Vihar, Ameri Road Bitaspur, P.5.- Civil Lines Bilaspur, Tahsit and t>istt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) -VERSUS- ,^-"a-SSF*- ..•••*^"*" ^oaid" RESPONDENT^ Difi'p Singh, Sai Infratrack , Plot No. 304 Sagar Garden Home, Chunabhatthi, Bhopal, DisU.- Bhopal (M.P.) MEMORANDUAAOF^ETETCON UNbER SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C. V H ,— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.85 oF 2013 PETITIONER: M/s. Raghav Madhav Associates RESPONDENT: Versus DilipSingh {Petition under Section 482 oF the Code oF Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Sunil Sahu, counsel For the petitioner. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORDER (4-10-2013)
Heard.
By this petition under Section 482 oF the CrPC, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety oF the order dated 13-12-2012 passed by the Sessions revision (M/s. Raghav Madhav Judge, Bilaspur Associates v. Dilip Singh), aFFirming the order dated 6-10-2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in an unregistered criminal complaint in an unregistered criminal case (M/s. Raghav Madhav Associates v. Dilip Singh), whereby the trialCourt has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner is not even having locus standi to prosecute the respondent.
Both the orders impugned, copy oF the complaint and copy oF the aFfidavit perused.
At the outset, it would have been appropriate to the trial Court to provide one opportunity to establish the locus standi, to the petitioner instead oF dismissing the complaint, especially in the light oF the fact is a the complainant proprietorship Firm and not a partnership Firm or a company.
Operative part
Consequently, the petition is allowed and both the orders impugned are hereby quashed. The case is remitted back to the trial Court For making Further inquiry into the complaint dismissed under Section 203 oF the CrPC in terms of Section 398 oF the CrPC;
The petitioner shall remain in attendance before the trial Court on 18-11 -2013. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, the petition is allowed and both the orders impugned are hereby
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 203, 398, 482.
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.