Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMIT MISHRA @ SONU versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amit Mishra @ Sonu v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 11652 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6107 (22 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 R.C.Deepak, J.

 Heard  learned counsel for the petitioner,  learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Lalit Mishra is the brother of the petitioner. The respondent concerned caused injuries to Lalit Mishra. He suffered injuries. A copy of his injury report is appended as Annexure 2 to the petition. No FIR by the police was registered. He presented an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 16.6.2005 (Annexure 1) before the magistrate for issuing direction to register a case and to initiate investigation but the learned magistrate vide order dated 28.6.2005 refused to do so. He preferred a criminal revision which too was dismissed on 8.7.2005. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts below refused to issue any direction on the ground that a case as case crime no. 358 of 2005 under Sections 504, 506, 307/34 IPC has already been registered against him and the injuries received by the injured are simple in nature.

I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing all the relevant records,    I am of the view that the application dated 16.6.2005 discloses the commission of cognizable offence. It was obligatory on the part of the learned magistrate to have directed for the registration of the case and its investigation but merely on the ground that a case has already been registered against the abovenamed injured, is not a ground to disallow the prayer.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merit of their case, the orders dated 28.6.2005 and 8.7.2005 passed by the courts below are hereby set aside. The magistrate concerned is hereby directed to reconsider the matter within a period  of one week from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order and pass a fresh order issuing a direction for the registration of the case and to initiate investigation.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Dt/- 22nd   November, 2005  

PKG/8 (11652/05)


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.