Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.39 seconds)
Astha Khetan vs State And Anr on 9 January, 2026 cites

A.C. Narayanan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 13 September, 2013

2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.' (2014) 11 SCC 790, has given discretion to the Magistrate to rely on the complaint, documents annexed and the affidavit submitted by complainant in deciding whether or not to issue process u/s. 200 CrPC and it is not mandatory to examine upon oath the complainant or its witnesses in order to decide the same. Upon considering the instant complaint, documents produced and verification in the form of affidavit of evidence, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against accused for offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act. Accused no. 1 is prima facie responsible, being the drawer of the cheque and accused no. 3 is also prima facie responsible being a partner of the accused No. 1 LLP as well as signatory to the cheques in dispute. Accused No. 2 is also prima facie responsible being a partner who is allegedly responsible and Incharge of the day-to-day affairs of the LLP along with accused no. 3. Accused no. 2 and 3 are also stated to be involved in the transaction in question being the signatories to the agreement and promissory note in question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 567 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Damodar S.Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H on 3 May, 2010

4. As per the guidelines laid down in 'Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H', AIR 2010 (SC) 1907, Ahlmad is directed to make a mention on the summons issued against the accused (by adding separate sheet, if required) that 'accused can make an application for compounding of the offence at the first and second hearing of the case and if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the Court without imposing any costs on the accused.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 5512 - Full Document
1   2 Next