Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINAY KUMAR SAXENA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinay Kumar Saxena v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 4027 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7173 (3 April 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. 43

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4027 of 2006

Vinay Kumar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner in the court of C.J.M., Moradabad, order dated 3.9.05 passed by learned C.J.M. registering the application as a complaint and the order of revisional court dated 28.1.2006 whereby revision was dismissed and the order passed by learned C.J.M. was affirmed.

It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that respondents no. 2 and 3 were given Car in question on their request and thereafter they did not return the vehicle to the petitioner despite repeated requests. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondents no. 2 and 3 were having business relationship and a sum of rupees about 1.5 lacs was due to the petitioner from respondents which they failed to return. It is contended that in case F.I.R. was lodged against respondents no. 2 and 3, the police could recover the vehicle in question from their possession and as such, the learned Magistrate erred in registering the application as a complaint.

I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. There is a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. U.P. Criminal Rulings, 2001 (21) 600. It was clearly held by the Full Bench that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. may be registered as a complaint and the learned Magistrate has been conferred a discretion in this regard. The Apex Court has also held that learned Magistrate commits no illegality in treating the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint.

In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court as well as Supreme Court of India, I find no illegality in the impugned orders passed by learned C.J.M., Moradabad  as well as revisional court. In my considered opinion, this petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The petition is hereby dismissed.

3.4.2006

OP/4027/06


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.