Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8658 (RAJ)

SHRI AMIT TAMBI S/O SHRI GHANSHYAM TAMBI v. SHRI LAXMIKANT BIYANI S/O LATE SHRI SHIVBHAGWAN BIYANI

CRLMP/1197/2025 · 2025-07-23

Praveer Bhatnagar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:27550] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1197/2025 Shri Amit Tambi S/o Shri Ghanshyam Tambi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 12, Tambi Bhawan, Malpura Gate, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Shri Laxmikant Biyani S/o Late Shri Shivbhagwan Biyani, R/o 607 A, Crystalmall, Near Motimahal Cinema, Sawaijaisingh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shobha Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 23/07/2025 The instant criminal misc. petition is preferred under Section 528 for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed in Criminal case No. 1853/2021 whereby the petitioner’s application for raising objection about the jurisdiction of the concerned court was dismissed. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that concerned clerk in his office report clearly mentioned that the jurisdiction is not clear. Concerned court ignoring the report of the clerk took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act. The petitioner by way of filing an application before the concerned court objected the jurisdiction of the court however, the court dismissed the petitioner’s application vide impugned order dated 16.01.2025, without going into the issue of jurisdiction. The [2025:RJ-JP:27550] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1197/2025] said order of the court below is against the law and settled legal preposition. Heard and perused the material available on the record. The complaint against the petitioner was filed way back in the year 2021 and the court below took cognizance against the petitioner on 17.08.2021 under Section 138 of NI Act, after perusing the content of the complaint. Thereafter, the trial was commenced and matter was fixed for recording the statement of petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner did not challenge the cognizance order and after a delay of almost four years has taken ground of jurisdiction. This court do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order dated 16.01.2025. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /37