9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs in connection with Criminal Case No. 252 of 2010 dated 22.06.2010 registered at Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. The High Court, by a detailed order, dismissed the appellants' case for quashing, inter alia, on the ground that the complaint disclosed prima facie case. The said order of the High Court has been impugned by the Appellants before us on various grounds. 4. When the matter was taken up at the previous stage and after we heard Learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the stand taken by the parties, we asked the learned counsel for the Appellant - Company to issue a publication in respect of Respondent No. 2 - the complainant clarifying therein that the expression Judas used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dian Penal Code and submits that offence under Section 503 is punishable under Section 506 Indian Penal Code. 8. Mr. Luthra, the learned senior counsel for the Appellants - Company further submitted that accepting the allegations on their face value, no cognizable case is made out against the appellants. In support of his contention, Mr. Luthra referred to the well known decision of this Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 102 and sub paras 2, 4 and 7 thereof at page Nos. 378 and 379 of the report. 9. By referring to those paragraphs, Mr. Luthra submits where the First Information Report and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Magistrate on 21.6.2010 on the complaint in this case which does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence is not legally sustainable order. The order reads thus: 21.06.2010 This complaint is forwarded to Chikadpally Police Station for Investigation and report under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. Sd/- Shri B. Rajashekar. Ld. IXth ACMM 12. Mr. Rai learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submitted that in a case like this, this Court is not called upon to go into all the factual allegations levelled against his client by the Appellant. Mr. Rai further submitted labelling of the complaint or the FIR is not decisive. As the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
