Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.58 seconds)
Kamal Saini And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 11 July, 2006 cites

Sukhpal Singh Bal vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 16 July, 2003

7. I have given my anxious consideration on the rival submissions raised at the bar and have gone through material placed on record of this Crl. Misc. Application. The submission canvassed lies in a narrow compass inasmuch as the whole submission centres round the fact as to whether merely by filing affidavit or affidavits in support of the protest petition, the Trial Court is bound to follow the procedure of complaint case or not before summoning the accused for offences which had been committed by them? This controversy had earlier come up before me in a case reported in 2006 Allahabad Criminal Cases (Vol. 55) page No. 1, Sukhpal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. In the aforesaid case, it has been held by me that any other material or extraneous material, means additional statement of fact in respect of incident and not the reiteration of those very facts which had already been stated during the course of investigation. Repeated narration of the same facts is not additional material but reiteration of the same material or facts. With this exposition of law and applying the same to the facts of the present case. I looked into the affidavits filed by the witness in support of the protest petition in the instant case. In all the affidavits, what has been stated by the witness are those very facts which had been mentioned in the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. which had culminated into the FIR. Narration of same facts in the affidavits, without containing any new material from what had already been stated in the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. does not debar the Magistrate from acting under Section 190 (1)(b), Cr.P.C. In the present case there was no new or additional facts that had constituted new and additional material. In this case, affidavits were not an additional material and since the contents of the affidavits are the same which found place in the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., therefore, there was no new or additional material. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for appliants that there was additional material which had been taken into consideration by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr for summoning the accused is not correct and is repelled. Since there was no additional material before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of which he had summoned the present applicants for offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 506, IPC and Sections 3/4, D.P. Act, therefore, he was not required to follow the procedure of the complaint case at all.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - M Katju - Full Document
1   2 Next