Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Keeping in view the above position, the facts those emerge from both the above petitions now require to be delineated.

3. Petitioner in the instant petition has sought following reliefs: -

"Petition u/s 561-A CrPC for quashing the judgment and order dated 25.05.2019 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby the revision petition has been rejected against the judgment and order of Learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge 13 FC) Jammu in File no. 174/complaint on 17.12.2018 where under fresh cognizance has been taken of complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act DOI 16.03.2016 which is contrary to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in petition 561-A No. 651/2017 holding the cognizance taken of complaint on 16.03.2016 on unsigned affidavit purportedly filed as a preliminary statement bad in law and quashed with further order that permission granted to rectify defect by permitting the placement of the affidavit on 22.4.2017 after the expiry of approximately one year from the date when the court had already issued the process at a subsequent point of time by virtue of order dated 1.7.2017 was totally perverse and impermissible in law thereby quashing the order of cognizance and the proceedings conducted on the basis thereof.

6. The petitioner in the instant petition has sought following reliefs: -

"Petition u/s 561-A CrPC for quashing the judgement and order dated 25.05.2019 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby the revision petition has been rejected against the judgement and order of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub- Judge 13 FC) Jammu in File No. 173/ complaint on 17.12.2018 where under fresh cognizance has been taken of complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act DOI 16.03.2016 which is contrary to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in petition 561-A No. 650/2017 holding the cognizance taken of complaint on 16.03.2016 on unsigned affidavit purportedlyfiled as a preliminary statement bad in law and quashed with further order that permission granted to rectify defect by permitting the placement of the affidavit on 22.04.2017 after the expiry of approximately one year from the date when the court had already issued the process at a subsequent point of time by virtue of order dated 1.07.2017 was totally perverse and impermissible in law thereby quashing the order of cognizance and the proceedings conducted on the basis thereof.