Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 56 (2.92 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Gulab Chand Upadhyaya vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 20 February, 2002
11. The facts were that on 2.1.06 at 9.45 A.M. when Pankaj son of applicant Suman Kumari was going to school Asgar Hussain (Constable in G.R.P.) started abusing him. On protest being raised by the applicant, Asgar Hussain aforesaid, with knife and his wife Afrosh and Ors. bet Smt. Suman Kumari. The applicant was saved by the neighbors. Since the F.I.R. of Smt. Suman Kumari was not taken down and she was arrested falsely under Section 151 Cr.P.C. therefore, she filed an application under Section code Cr.P.C. The said application and her prayer for registration of FIR was rejected by the Magistrate by passing the impugned order on the ground that no medical report was filed and the incident was known to her and no new fact can come to light. Therefore, in view of Gulab Chand Upadhyay v. State 2002 LCR Page 2907 and 2001(2) 320, Joseph Madhuri v. Sachidanand Hari Shashtri the application was ordered to be registered as complaint. Hence, challenge has been thrown to the aforesaid order dated 6.2.06 by this application.
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
In the aforesaid judgment Gulab Chand Upadhyay (Supra) Hislordship has taken a view that if the complainant is in the knowledge of all the details of an incident and where no investigation is required the investigation should not be ordered by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. With utmost respect and humility at my command, I am unable to agree with the aforesaid reasoning of the Hon'ble Judge being contrary to the Section 156(3) of the code itself and also being contrary to the judgment of the apex court in cases of Bhajan Lal (Supra), Suresh Chand Jain (Supra), B.C. Govind (Supra) and Tapan Kumar Singh (Supra). It is the responsibility of the Magistrate to direct the police to follow the mandate of law and it will be a travesty of justice that the Magistrate instead of directing the police to follow the statutory mandate of law gives it a long rope to act arbitrarily at it's whims. Thus when ever the Magistrate is approached by an aggrieved person with the prayer that the police has refused to register his FIR of cognizable offence the Magistrate is required to look into his such prayer only to determine as to whether any cognizable offence is disclosed thereby or not, and if it does, then he has no option but to direct the police to register the FIR and investigate the offence.