Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mohd. Haroon @ Sher Ali & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4823 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5629 (11 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).


Court no.42

Criminal Revision No.4823 2005

Mohd. Haroon @ Sher Ali & others      Vs           State of U.P. & another    

Hon.Shiv Shanker,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned order.

This criminal revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 6.10.2005, passed in criminal case No.158 of 2005, Dr. Ahmad Raza Vs. Sher Ali, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C., P.S. Mungrabadshahpur, District Jaunpur whereby permission was granted to investigate the case upon the non-cognizable  report. It is contended on behalf of the revisionists that court below has committed illegality by passing the impugned order on the basis of  x-ray report, which is not relied to the injury report of the injured. Therefore, permission could not be granted. On the other hand, it is submitted that court below has not committed illegality in passing the impugned order. Radiologist report and injury report can be looked by the Investigating Officer  and report may be submitted after completion of the investigation.

In this revision  the impugned order has been challenged. Non-cognizable report no.110 of 2005, Dr. Ahmad Raza Vs.Sher Ali and others, was written at the concerned police station under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. as non-cognizable offence. Thereafter the complainant respondent Dr. Ahmad moved an application to get the permission for investigation, which was allowed by the court below and permission was granted to the Investigating Officer regarding non-cognizable offence. It has been provided under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. that no police officers shall investigate  non-cognizable  case without the order of Magistrate having power to try such case and commit for trial  by any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation. (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer-in-charge of the police station may exercise  a cognizable case. Therefore, the trial court was empowered to give the permission to investigate the case regarding above non-cognizable report. Injury report and radiologist report may be seen or looked by the Investigating Officer. At this stage, no finding can be given regarding it. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

In the circumstances, this revision is liable to be dismissed at this stage of admission. consequently, this revision is dismissed at the stage of admission.




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


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 |

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