Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Kusum Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 February, 2023 cites

Kusum Devi & Anr vs Sri Mithilesh Mishra, The State Of Bihar ... on 2 January, 2019

Brief facts as borne out from the records of the present application are that the applicant/ complainant filed complaint against the opposite party no.2 on 20.09.2019 in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Court no. 24, Deoria alleging therein that in May, 2019 the opposite party no.2 had taken Rs. 2 lacs as loan from the applicant with an assurance to refund the same within two months. It is further alleged that after lapse of such time when the applicant/complainant demanded the said money from opposite party no.2, on 19.08.2019 she had given cheque no. 145372 amounting to Rs. 40,000/-, cheque no. 145373 amounting to Rs. 40,000/-of State Bank of India & cheque no. 145371 amounting to Rs. 15,000/- of same bank dated 20.08.2019 and on 21st August, 2019 the applicant/complainant deposited the same in her Account no., 11171307559 maintained in the State Bank of India Branch Raghav Nagar, Deoria which was returned on same day i.e. 21.08.2019 by the Bank due to insufficient balance. Information in this regard was given by the complainant to the accused opposite party no. 2 and she has also sent a legal notice and ultimately filed complaint under section 138 N.I. Act. On the complaint filed by the applicant/complainant dated 20.09.2019 the concerned Magistrate took cognizance and the same has been numbered as Complaint case no. 14100 of 2021 (Kusum Devi Vs. Mithilesh) and opportunity of statement of complainant/applicant came to an end under section 244 Cr.P.C. and the proceeding of 313 Cr.P.C. is also completed.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - M K Shah - Full Document

Manju Devi vs The State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2019

So far as the other ground taken by the court below in passing the order impugned that the application has been filed by the applicant at a belated stage i.e. when her testimony (in examination-in-chief and cross-examination) has already been completed, is concerned, this Court has find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that to protect the interest of justice, evidence can be lead at any stage of the proceedings. (Reference the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2019) 6 SCC 203.).
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 64 - D Maheshwari - Full Document
1