Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.41 seconds)
Adarsh Singh Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 18 April, 2016 cites

Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 19 March, 2015

According to the respondent, the transaction between the applicant and respondent was closed in the year 2010 and, therefore, such cheques must have been stolen in the year 2010 then it was for the respondent to establish before the Magistrate that he used the subsequent cheques in the year 2010 and those cheques were stolen and, therefore, the data relating to issuance of cheque books and bank account to show as and when subsequent cheque was used by the respondent and such documents were to be submitted along with the application under Section 156(3) of the 6 M.Cr.C. No. 11083/2015 & 11084/2015 Cr.P.C.; thirdly if a person, who is dealing with the business of estate then when he closed the transaction with the applicant in the year 2010 then if some cheques were stolen then he should have known about that theft when he had an opportunity to use the cheque book for the next cheque. The respondent was not expected to remain careless about his blank cheques for four years. Hence, it was for the Magistrate to satisfy himself that prima facie any offence was made out against the applicant or not and, thereafter, he would have directed to register the case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. but it appears that on the basis of complaint sent by the respondent to the SHO and SP concerned, his application was allowed without passing any speaking order and SHO, Maharajpura was directed to register a case. Hence, the Magistrate did not apply its mind while accepting the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it was contrary to the provisions of law specially as explained in case of Priyanka Shrivastava (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 1448 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next