High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 05 UK CK 0017

Harpreet Singh Sandhu vs Orex Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd. and Orex Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd.

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 27 May 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prafulla C. Pant, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C-482 No. 475 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 266 words

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. J.S. Bisht, Advocate, present for the Petitioner.

2.

Heard.

3.

By means of this petition moved u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 190 of 2011 (Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd. v. Harpreet Singh) u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway Haldwani.

4.

It is pleaded on behalf of the Petitioner that the dispute between the parties was referred to the arbitration and after considering the matter, arbitrator has given its decision.

5.

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner and gone through the contents of the papers on record, this Court is of the view that merely on the basis that the dispute has been referred to the arbitrator and arbitrator has given its decision, it does not affect the criminal liability of a person said to have committed an offence. It is open for the Petitioner to raise the plea of innocence or the adjustment as to the payments made subsequent to the issuance of the cheque before the trial court which can appreciate the factual disputes better. It is not desirable on the part of this Court in its jurisdiction u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with the trial of the case.

6.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is summarily dismissed.

(Stay application No. 566 of 2011 also stands dismissed)