Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Rajeev Kumar Mishra vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Delhi) & Anr on 8 February, 2016

Rahul Yadav vs State & Anr on 1 March, 2018

Indubitably in view of the order passed by this Court in Rajeev Mehra vs. State in W.P. (C) No. 2596/2007 staying the operation of invocation of declaring Section 506 IPC as cognizable offence, the offence on the date it was allegedly committed was non-cognizable however, as per the schedule to the Cr.P.C. offence punishable under Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence. Thus, the Investigating Officer was within his power to have registered a FIR since the complaint disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document

Desh Deepak vs Smt Reena on 3 March, 2025

32. As discussed in Rajeev Kumar case (ibid),the issuance of a cheque becomes a promise to pay under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. The delivery of the cheque to the drawee creates a right to recover the money. On the cheque being dishonoured the person concerned becomes liable for prosecution. The execution of the cheque is an acknowledgment of a legally enforceable liability. As per Section 25(3) of ICA, a promise can be made even in a case where the limitation for recovery of the amount has already expired. Such a promise has to be in writing. It can be in the form of a cheque. When a cheque is delivered to the payee, the person is entitled to present the cheque to the bank and seek payment. In such an event, if the cheque is dishonoured, the liability under Section 138 NI Act Digitally signed by SEEMA SEEMA MEENA would arise. In present case, the cheque in question issued by the MEENA Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1