IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL BENCH AT

JABALPUR

(EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)

Crl. Misc. (Main) No. ______ of 20__

IN THE MATTER OF:

GARGI INSTITTUE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & SECRETARY

1. PRANJAL PARASHAR
2. HEERA PARASHAR

                      …      PETITIONERS

  VERSUS

LOH PURUSH TRAVELS

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MANISH KUMAR SONI

…       RESPONDENTS

INDEX

S No. PARTICULARS ANNEXURES PAGE No.

1. Notice of Motion

2. Urgent Application

3. Memo of Parties

4. Petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Copy of Petition filed U/S 200

IPC , U/S 138 N.I Act.
Attached as Annexure-
6. Copy of the order dated

7. Vakalatnam

  Petitioner

Through

________

Advocate

 _______________,

Place:                                                  _____________________

Date:                                                  Madhya Pradesh High Court , Jabalpur

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL BENCH AT
JABALPUR

(EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)

Crl. Misc. (Main) No. ______ of 20__

IN THE MATTER OF:

GARGI INSTITTUE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & SECRETARY

1. PRANJAL PARASHAR
2. HEERA PARASHAR

                      …      PETITIONERS

  VERSUS

LOH PURUSH TRAVELS

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MANISH KUMAR SONI

…       RESPONDENTS

NOTICE OF MOTION

Sir,

The enclosed petition in the aforesaid matter is being filed on behalf of the petitioner
and is likely to be listed on __________ or any date, thereafter. Please take notice
accordingly. Issue any appropriate order for quashing and setting aside the Order
dated ______ and Complaint no 1649/2013.

Petitioner

Through

Advocate

 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL BENCH AT
JABALPUR

To,

The Deputy Registrar,

Madhya Pradesh High Court,

Jabalpur.

 Case No. ________________________ of 2010

IN THE MATTER OF: 

GARGI INSTITTUE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & SECRETARY

1. PRANJAL PARASHAR
2. HEERA PARASHAR

                      …      PETITIONERS

  VERSUS

LOH PURUSH TRAVELS

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MANISH KUMAR SONI

…       RESPONDENTS

URGENT APPLICATION

Sir, Will you kindly treat the accompanying petition as urgent one in accordance with
the High Courts Rules and Orders.

1.       The ground of urgency are:

 

Yours faithfully,

 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL BENCH AT
JABALPUR

(EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)

Crl. Misc. (Main) No. ______ of 20__

IN THE MATTER OF: 

GARGI INSTITTUE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & SECRETARY

1. PRANJAL PARASHAR
2. HEERA PARASHAR

                      …      PETITIONERS

  VERSUS

LOH PURUSH TRAVELS

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MANISH KUMAR SONI

…       RESPONDENTS

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. GARGI INSTITTUE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY THROUGH ITS

PRESIDENT & SECRETARY

1. PRANJAL PARASHAR
2. HEERA PARASHAR

2. LOH PURUSH TRAVELS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MANISH KUMAR

SONi

Place : Jabalpur

Date: Petitioner

Through

Advocate
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL BENCH AT
JABALPUR

(EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)

Crl. Misc. (Main) No. ______ of 20__

IN THE MATTER OF:

GARGI INSTITTUE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & SECRETARY

1. PRANJAL PARASHAR
2. HEERA PARASHAR

                      …      PETITIONERS

  VERSUS

LOH PURUSH TRAVELS

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MANISH KUMAR SONI

…       RESPONDENTS

PETITION U/S 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ,1973,

SEEKING TO QUASH CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO. RT-1649/2013
REGISTERED U/S 200 CRPC , 138 N.I ACT & SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS , DISTRICT &
SESSIONS COURT OF BHOPAL.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. That the petitioner is constrained to move this Hon’ble Court invoking it

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973,
against the criminal complaint u/s 200 IPC and 138 N.I. Act and Arrest orders
dated and order dated passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bhopal having its jurisdiction concerning matters under T.T Nagar Police
station vide the said orders the learned magistrate has dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner for producing evidence in its defence u/s
and has proceeded to issue processes of arrest further in the trial. The
impugned orders dated is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE -
.
2. At the outset , it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner filed various
applications time and again during the trial to adduce evidence for defence
but the learned Magistrate rejected each application of the petitioner. The
complaint filed by the respondent is bereft of any material averment as the
respondent failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim other than the
bounced cheque which in dispute for which the petitioner tried to summon
various witnesses to disproof the claim of the respondent / complainant but in
vain the bias and unreasonable approach of the learned judge is against the
Principal of Natural Justice . the learned judge vide various impugned orders
has deprived the petioner of adducing evidence in his defence which is not
only essential part of any criminal trial but also vital in securing the ends of
justice.
3. It is submitted that lerned magistrate has proceeded further in the trial passing
arresting orders against the petitioner without applying his mind and logical
reasoning whatsoever , neglectimng various discrepancies in evidences
adduced by the respondent / complainant and without appreciatimg the facts
which have come up in the chief and cross examination of the respondent /
complainant.
4. In these circumsatnces , the petitioner has no other remedy but to approach thso
Hon’ble Court by way of the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.c. seeking
to quash the the said complaint and the impugned order dated. In so far to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court.Moreover in Madhu Limaye Vs.
The state of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, it has been held that “ In general a
judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed
“final” .” The impugned orders determines the principal matter that is derpiving
the petioner of its right to defence , as such the petitioner has no other remedy
but to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of this present petition.
5. That for the proper appreciation of the instant petition certain relevant facts and
circumsatnces , are detailed herein below as follows:
(a). The respondent herein i.e Loh Purush Travels Through its Proprietor
Manish Kumar Soni filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class , Bhopal June , 2013 against Gargi Institute of Science And Technolgy
and its key Personals alleging Section 138 of the N.I. Act , which came to be
registered as RT no. 1649/2013. In the said complaint the petitioners herein was
arrayed as accused. A true copy of the complaint RT no.1649/2013 dated is
annexed hereto and marked as annexure - .
(b). that the petitioner from the vry beginning of the trial has insisting on the
that the petitioner never gave any cheque to the the respondent whereas for the
appreciation of the abovesadi fact the petitioner time and again moved
applications before the hon’ble judges who have been ruuning the trial in the
district add sesisons court of Bhopal to get the statemnets of the employees of
the intitute on record to establish the fact that he cheque was never give n to
the respondent but all in vain the application were rejected without application
of the mind and without analysing the merits of the case. Attached as annexure
©. That for estabilishing the fact that the cheque in dispute is a forged
document and was never given to the respondent on behalf of the petitioner ,
the counsel for the petitioner moved an application for the getting the signature
and the amount and the ink verified by handwriting expert and the validity of
 thr ink used in a reputed laboratatry to get evidence on record for the defence of
the petioner but all the application were staraingt awasy rejected byt the
hon’ble udges who were conducting the trial at various point of time failinb the
basic principal of jurisprudence giving accused the right to defence himself in
he court of law.

(d). the respondent herein the abovementioned complaint has alleged that the
institute wherein the petitioners were acting President and secretary were in
contract with respondent in which the respondent had to give logistic support to
the petitioner institute for conveyance of the institute for which the respondent
failed to adduce any piece of evidence or the contract about which the
respondent has alleged in his complaint
(e). that the respondent during its cross examination failed to produce any
information in context of the permissions. Regarding the operatioms of the
buses for educational institutes given by the RTO in the name of the
respondent , also the respondent failed to give any information regarding the
registration of the buses which were in service as alleged by the respondent for
the institiute of the petiotoner .
(f). that for the appreciation and validation of the above facts which came up
during the cross-examination , the petitioner herein moved an application to
introduce the RTO offcialls alonwith the records of the respondents firm on
record to produce evidence in defence of the accused to establish the malifide
intention of the respondents but the said appliocations were also rejected witout
giving valid reasons in the order and without the application of mind in the sadi
case with a bias midset of punshng the respondent without analysing wihh the
merits and demerits of the case.
(g). that the petitioner has been deprived of the its right to defence himself in
the court of law and aggrieved by the bias approach of the leaned court the
petitioner moved an appeal against various orders mentioned above , instead of
the appeals pending before the hon’ble higncourt the learned JNfc issued a
arrest warrant againstthe petioner on 15/03/2019 , which is an absolute abuse of
the process of law .

6. that being agrrived by the various order passed by the learned lower court refusing
or obstructing the petitioner to exercise its right to defence himself a nd to produce
evidence in its defence in a criminal trial bearing ref no. RT , the petioner
seek leave of thois Hon’ble court by invoking its inherent powers u/s 482 of CRPC.

7. that two different affidavits have been filed by the respondent stating contrary facts
( copy annexed)

 
 

1. That the present petition is being filed on inter-alia the following amongst other
grounds:-

GROUNDS
 

1. For that in any event, on a reading of the FIR as it is, no offence whatsoever is
made out against the petitioners including the offences U/S’s.
2. For that LEGAL MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM which insist that no one
should be condemned unheard as observed I Ravindra Kumar Dey Vs State of
Orissa 1977 AIR 170, 1977 SCR(1) 439.
3. For that the petitioner has been deprived of his right to present defence evidence
before the court of law time and again , the petitioner filed application u/s 415 for
defence statements , the learned judge without examining the merits of the
application and without taking into consideration inherent infirmities zqin the
respondents complaint for instance two affidavits filed by the respondents
contradicting each other , without divulging an iota of material the learned
magistrate straight away have been dismissing the various applications for defence
evidence (copy of the orders annexed )
4. For that an appeal has been pending before the high court against the dismissal
order for defence evidence , neglecting the pendency of an appeal in high court
praying giving an opportunity of producing defence evidence the learned judge
issued an arrest warrant against the petitioner on 15/03/2019 which clearly
establishes the the bias approach of the court towards the petitioner( case law for
prejudice and order annexed )
5. For that Section 243 of the code of criminal procedure clearly states that as
follows :-

(1). The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his
evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it with
the record.

(2).  If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to
issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of
examination or cross- examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the
 Magistrate shall issue such. process unless he considers that such application should be
refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating
the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing: Provided that,
when the accused has cross- examined or had the opportunity of cross- examining any
witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be
compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the
ends of justice.

(3). The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on an application under sub-
section (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for
the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.

6. For that as observed in Mrs Kalyani Bhaskar Vs M.S. Sampurnam (2007) 2SCC258
is that “ Fair trial includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her
innocence adducing evidence in support of defence is a valuable right in a criminal
case , denial for that right means denial for fair trial”

1. That this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the instant
petition.

1. That this petition is being filed within a reasonable time and there is no delay in
the same.

1. That no other petition for quashing of FIR, has been filed by the petitioners before
this Hon’ble Court or any other Court of law.

1. That the aforesaid facts and grounds constitute the cause of action for filing the
present petition.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:-

a)           Quash the FIR No. ____ U/s 287/ 336/304- A, Indian Penal Code, P.S.
________________;
b)           Pass any other order as may be deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

Petitioners

Through

______

Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL

BENCH AT JABALPUR

(EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)

Crl. Misc. (Main) No. ______ of 20__

IN THE MATTER OF:

GARGI INSTITTUE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & SECRETARY

1. PRANJAL PARASHAR
2. HEERA PARASHAR

                      …      PETITIONERS

  VERSUS

LOH PURUSH TRAVELS

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MANISH KUMAR SONI

…       RESPONDENTS
 

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF

I, _________, S/o Late ______________, aged about ____ years, R/o ____________
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That I am the petitioner in the aforesaid case and am acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. That the accompanying petition for quashing of FIR has been drafted by my
counsel under my instructions.
3. That the contents of the petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief and nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified at jabalpurn today i.e.            day of ____, 20__ that the contents of this
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL BENCH AT
JABALPUR

(EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)

Crl. Misc. (Main) No. ______ of 20__

IN THE MATTER OF:

GARGI INSTITTUE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & SECRETARY

1. PRANJAL PARASHAR
2. HEERA PARASHAR

                      …      PETITIONERS

  VERSUS

LOH PURUSH TRAVELS

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MANISH KUMAR SONI

…       RESPONDENTS

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF

I,                                    S/o                                           , R/o

do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

 
1. That I am the petitioner in the aforesaid case and am acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. That the accompanying application for exemption has been drafted by my counsel
under my instructions.
3. That the contents of the application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief and nothing material has been concealed there
from.

DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified at Jabalpur today i.e.            day of ___, 20__ that the contents of this
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
material has been concealed there from.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
BENCH AT JABALPUR

(EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)

Crl. Misc. (Main) No. ______ of 20__

IN THE MATTER OF:

GARGI INSTITTUE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & SECRETARY

1. PRANJAL PARASHAR
2. HEERA PARASHAR

                      …      PETITIONERS

  VERSUS

LOH PURUSH TRAVELS

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MANISH KUMAR SONI

…       RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPIES OF

THE ANNEXURES.

The Petitioner most respectfully submit as under:-

1.       That the certified copies of certain Annexures (as required by the Rules)
mentioned in the accompanying petition, shall be filed before this Hon’ble Court in
due course as and when the same are received.

PRAYER
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a.       Grant exemption from filing of certified copies of certain annexures, with

liberty to file the same in due course; &

b.       pass any other order as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case.  

Petitioner

Through

Advocate

 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL BENCH AT
JABALPUR

(EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)

Crl. Misc. (Main) No. ______ of 20__

IN THE MATTER OF:

GARGI INSTITTUE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & SECRETARY

1. PRANJAL PARASHAR
2. HEERA PARASHAR

                      …      PETITIONERS

  VERSUS

LOH PURUSH TRAVELS

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MANISH KUMAR SONI

…       RESPONDENTS

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF

I, ______ , S/o ______ , aged about _____ ,Chamber _____,  New Delhi  do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That I am the proxy counsel in the aforesaid case and am acquainted with the facts
and circumstances of the case.
2. That the accompanying application for exemption for filing certified copies has
been drafted by me.
3. That the contents of the application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief and nothing material has been concealed there
from.

DEPONENT
Verification:

Verified at New Delhi today i.e.            day of March, 20__ that the contents of this
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT