Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing V. Chandrasekhara Pandian vs Muthukaruppa Thevar on 21 January, 1983

Subramanian vs State By Inspector Of Police, Cb, Cid on 28 February, 1995

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Selvam would submit that the recording of the report of the police is a judicial order and when once that order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, the aggrieved party has the right of revision against that order but at no circumstance, the Police can be allowed for second investigation on a second complaint by the aggrieved party and therefore in this case, even though the learned Magistrate has recorded the police report only on 23.12.94 as the police had already referred the complaint as the case is of civil nature, there cannot be a second investigation by CB. C.I.D. Police. The learned counsel referred to decision of this Court in Chandrashekara Pandian v. Muthukaruppa Thevar (1983 Law Weekly (crl) 347) wherein Justice M.N. Moorthy, relying upon Kamalaputi v. State of West Bengal has held that when the Magistrate on the final report submitted by the police has recorded the report, his order is a judicial order and this referred charge has to be informed to the complaint by the court. But in that case as no notice was sent to the complainant, the second complaint was not quashed against those who were accused in the complaint.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shyam Bahu Agrawal vs State Of M.P on 8 July, 2014

IN REGARD TO QUESTION NO.2 10- After investigation, final report will be produced under Section 173 sub-section (2) (i) of the Code and according to Section 173 (2)(ii) the police officer shall communicate to the person, by whom the information relating to commission of offence was first given. Reasoning behind it is that informant should know the result and fate of the FIR lodged by him and in view of that time to time it was held by the Court that on receipt of final report from the police under Section 173 of the Code recommending dropping of the proceedings, Magistrate has to first issue notice to the complainant before passing the order. Though statute does not expressly required a notice to be issued or hearing to be given to the party adversely affected, in the eyes of law it is just necessary that they should be heard by the Court before making an order of dismissal of the complaint. This view was expressed in Chandrasekhara Pandian Vs. Muthukaruppa Thevar, 1983 Madras Law Weekly (Criminal) 347.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Arvind @ Kallu vs State Of M.P. on 27 August, 2014

(10) Now, in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-sec.(2) of S.173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding or in other words, if final report is filed by the police itself that no case is made out, in such circumstances, the Magistrate is bound to give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of the report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. It is further incumbent upon the police officer that after investigation when final report is produced by him under Section 173(2)(i) of the Code then he shall communicate to the person under Section 173(2)(ii) of the Code by whom the information relating to commission of offence was first given. Reasoning behind it is that informant should know the result and fate of the FIR lodged by him and in view of that time to time it was held by the Court that on receipt of final report from the police under Section 173 of the Code recommending dropping of the proceedings, Magistrate has to first issue notice to the complainant before passing the order. Though statute does not expressly require a notice to be issued or hearing to be given to the party adversely affected, in the eyes of law, it is just necessary that they should be heard by the Court before making an order of dismissal of the complaint. Aforesaid was expressed in Chandrasekhara Pandian Vs. Muthukaruppa Thevar, 1983 Madras Law Weekly (Criminal) 347.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1