Ritu Ranger vs.m/s. s.r. Technosoft Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Ritu Ranger vs M/S. s.r. Technosoft Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 09, 2018

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1215892

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1215892
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jul 09, 2018
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ritu Ranger

Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma

Respondent

M/S. s.r. Technosoft Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Excerpt

.....jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (cr.p.c.) to bring a challenge to the summoning order as also the order of the revisional court, the prime contention being that the role and responsibility of the petitioner herein was limited and did not relate to the transactions in question.3. against the above backdrop, a question arose as to whether the petitioners having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed to take recourse of section 482 cr.p.c. as a substitute for bringing virtually a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under section 397 (3) cr.p.c.4. this court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of the decisions of the supreme court reported as krishnan vs. krishnaveni, (1997) 4 scc241 rajinder prasad vs. bashir, (2001) 8 scc522and kailash verma vs. punjab state civil supplies corporation & anr., (2005) 2 scc571and following similar view taken by a learned single judge of this court in surender kumar jain vs. state & anr., ilr (2012) 3 del 99, in absence of a special case being made out, has earlier declined to interfere by the ruling (dated 03.07.2018) in crl.m.c. 164/2018 ajay maini vs. the state govt. of nct of delhi & ors. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c.5. there are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand for the revisional court’s view to be disturbed. crl. m.c. no.2346/2015 page 2 of 3 6. the petition stands dismissed. r.k.gauba, j.july09 2018 vk crl. m.c. no.2346/2015 page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

$~13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-

"9th July, 2018 + CRL.M.C. 2346/2015 RITU RANGER ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate versus M/S. S.R. TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD. & ANR....... RESPONDENTS

Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. On the three criminal complaints (CC No.351/1/14, CC No.661/1/14, and CC No.662/1/14) of the first respondent (the complainant) by orders dated 15.03.2014 and 02.05.2014, the petitioner along with certain others including the first respondent (her employer company) were issued summons to face criminal prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 respecting certain cheques which had been issued in her favour against the account of the first respondent, the same having been dishonoured and returned unpaid upon being presented at the bank and no payment having been made there against in response to the demand notices which were statedly issued and served.

2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said summoning orders had invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the court of Sessions by Crl. M.C. No.2346/2015 Page 1 of 3 presenting revision petitions (Criminal revision No.57-59/2015) which were dismissed by common order dated 17.04.2015. The present petition has been filed invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to bring a challenge to the summoning order as also the order of the revisional court, the prime contention being that the role and responsibility of the petitioner herein was limited and did not relate to the transactions in question.

3. Against the above backdrop, a question arose as to whether the petitioners having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed to take recourse of Section 482 Cr.P.C. as a substitute for bringing virtually a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C.

4. This Court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC241 Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC522and Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC571and following similar view taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar Jain vs. State & Anr., ILR (2012) 3 Del 99, in absence of a special case being made out, has earlier declined to interfere by the ruling (dated 03.07.2018) in Crl.M.C. 164/2018 Ajay Maini vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. There are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand for the revisional court’s view to be disturbed. Crl. M.C. No.2346/2015 Page 2 of 3 6. The petition stands dismissed. R.K.GAUBA, J.

JULY09 2018 vk Crl. M.C. No.2346/2015 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Ritu Ranger vs M/S. s.r. Technosoft Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Same Subject Land Acquisition