Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Smt. Hema Pathak Wife Of Sri Girja ... vs State Of U.P. And Mukul Pathak Son Of Late ... on 1 December, 2006
There are two aspects which needs to be considered. One is in
term of the law laid down by Allahabad High Court in case of Hema
Pathak (Smt.) vs. State of U.P.; 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 132 which
provides that order of rejection of application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation of the case does not operate as
res-judicata, therefore, filing of complaint is not barred.
Santosh Kumar Singh vs The State Of U.P. & Ors. Etc on 12 December, 1995
In case of Santosh Kumari vs. State of U.P.; 2007 CrLJ 3869 , it
is held that Magistrate has no power under the aforesaid section to
convert an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. into an application
against the wishes of victim. Another aspect is that whether requirements
of treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were fulfilled
6
then it is evident that there was no prayer to convert that application into
that as a private complaint, and therefore, in the opinion of this Court,
this second limb of argument that Special Judge should have treated it as
a private complaint is not made out.
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Shrikrishna Gupta vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Food ... on 24 October, 2019
Second aspect is that in case of Harikrishna Das Gupta vs. State
of U.P.; 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 408 , it is held that an application under
Section 156 (3) by the complainant to the Magistrate for direction to the
police to investigate the case cannot be registered/treated as complaint
by the Magistrate as it can be treated as complaint only when the
complainant so desires and not suo moto. In the present case neither the
application is in the prescribed format nor there is any prayer to treat it
as a private complaint.
1