Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SHAKILA versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Shakila v. State Of U.P. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 12723 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5355 (8 November 2005)

 

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. 54

Criminal Misc. Application No. 12723 of 2005

Smt. Shakila Vs. State of U.P.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

The grievance of the applicant is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 29.8.2005, passed on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against 9 persons, has directed to lodge a first information report against three persons only namely Farid, Smt. Shahjahan and Akil. On perusal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it transpires that the allegations have been leveled against all the accused mentioned in the application. Injury report has also been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit to substantiate the allegations. The Magistrate has tried to analyze the evidence while directing the police to register the case only against three persons and exonerating other accused. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. provides that when an application is moved and it appears to the Magistrate that a cognizable offence has taken place, he shall direct the police of the concerned police station to register and investigate. Learned counsel for the applicant has emphatically argued that the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction while discussing the injury report and role of respective accused, which can not be done at this stage. Once the first information report is registered and investigation is commenced, it is the Investigating Officer, who can investigate the matter and in the event, a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is filed, the Magistrate can take cognizance. The Magistrate committed material illegality in directing registration of the first information report only against three accused.

After hearing the counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, I set aside the order dated 29.8.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar and direct the Magistrate to consider the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and pass orders in accordance with law.

With these observations, this application is finally disposed of.

Dt/-20.9.2005.Rmk.  


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.