Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KISHAN versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kishan v. State Of U.P. & Others - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 16634 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5982 (18 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

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the accused applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Application has been  under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by J.M., Gautambudh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 415 of 2005 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereby he rejected the application filed by the applicant Ram Krishna under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that as per the allegations made by the applicant a bull had entered  in the house of opposite party and they killed it in their self defence. In the complaint it has been alleged that on 17.8.2005 at about 6 p.m., a bull entered the house of Zumma and others and they killed it by giving ballam blows. The complainant and the witnesses had arrived at the spot and they asked the opposite parties not to kill but in vain. Thereafter this application was filed with the prayer to direct the S.O. to register and investigate the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused applicant is that at this stage learned Magistrate could not have considered the case of self defence.

He was only required to see if any cognizable offence is made and which needs investigation. He has further contended that the accused have been acquitted without there being any trial. The contention as raised by the learned counsel have force. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. shows that the bull had entered the house of the accused persons. But there is nothing to suggest at this stage that the bull had attacked any of the accused or their family members or had damaged their property or that it was out of control. If it had entered the house it could have been turned and without giving it ballam blows and killing it brutally.

In the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

The application under Section 428 Cr.P. C. is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to decide the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. afresh and according to law.

Copy of this order be sent to learned lower Court within a week.

Dated: 18.11.2005

RKS/16634/05


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.