AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 155 wordsKiran Anand Lall, J.—Shri Vivek Sharma contends that all the grounds taken up in the petition for quashing of complaint, Annexure P-1, involve disputed questions of facts which can be decided by the trial court after recording of evidence, and in so far as the question of correctness of summoning order dated 12.7.1994, Annexure P-2, is concerned, the same is revisable and revision lies before the Sessions Judge.
It is well settled law that the High Court will not enter into enquiry of disputed facts. Besides, when specific remedy of revision challenging the correctness of the summoning order is available to the petitioner, inherents power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be invoked for quashing the same.
The petition shall, according, stand dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner, will be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to him, before the trial court, at appropriate stage.