Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PREM SINGH & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Prem Singh & another v. State of U.P. & another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 1623 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3121 (10 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 49

Crl.Misc.Application No. 1623 of 2006

Prem Singh and another  . .  . . .  Vs.  . .  . . . State of U.P. and another.

----

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 19.7.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri in complaint case no. 1795 of 2005, Chameli Devi Vs. Devendra Singh & others, under sections 147, 148, 149, 392 I.P.C. and 3(2) & 5 of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

A perusal of the record reveals the above complaint was filed  against accused  applicants  and some others,  and the accused have been summoned by the learned Magistrate  after evidence under section 202(2) Cr.P.C. However, it is to be seen  that the offence under section 302 I.P.C. is  exclusively triable by the court of Session s  and so before passing the order for summoning the accused the learned Magistrate should have recorded  statements  of all the prosecution witnesses as required under the proviso to section 202(2) Cr.P.C. but he has not done so and the statement of the doctor etc. have not also been been recorded. Therefore, the order passed  by the Magistrate summoning the accused is not in accordance with the  law and so it is liable to be set aside.

The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the summoning order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri in complaint case no. 1795 of 2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded  to his court for making compliance of the requirement of the proviso to section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after making the above compliance  shall hear the complainant on the point of summoning  the accused persons and shall pass suitable orders  in the matter in accordance with law.

Dated:10.2.2006

RPP/Crl.Misc.Appl.1623/06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.