Can a Section 482 CrPC petitioner withdraw a quashing petition to challenge an order under Section 138 NI Act without affecting future merits review?

High Court allows withdrawal as prayed and clarifies that it did not examine merits—lower court must decide any fresh application on its own merits.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name CR.MA/18998/2023 of SADHNA MANISH MALOO Vs STATE OF GUJARAT
CNR GJHC240705552023
Decision Date 18-08-2025
Disposal Nature Disposed of as withdrawn
Judgment Author HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Court High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Bench Single Judge
Facts as Summarised by the Court

Petitioner’s application for deletion of his name from a complaint under Section 138 NI Act was rejected by the trial court;

petitioner sought to withdraw the quashing petition to challenge that order.

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • The High Court’s permission to withdraw a Section 482 petition does not equate to an adjudication on merits.
  • Any future application for quashing or deletion must be considered de novo by the concerned court.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  1. The petitioner sought to withdraw the quashing petition to challenge an order rejecting deletion of his name from a Section 138 NI Act complaint.
  2. The Court granted permission to withdraw “as prayed for.”
  3. It expressly clarified that no merits were examined.
  4. The trial court is directed to consider any fresh application on its own merits without being influenced by this withdrawal.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner:

  • The petitioner’s deletion-of-name application under Section 138 NI Act was rejected by the trial court.
  • He sought to withdraw the quashing petition in order to challenge that rejection in appropriate proceedings.

Factual Background

Petitioner Sadhna Manish Maloo filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash or set aside the order rejecting her application for deletion of name from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petition was withdrawn with the court’s permission, and the High Court clarified it did not consider the merits and directed the lower court to hear any fresh challenge on its own merits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.