Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 1 August, 2014

counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant, in pursuance of Ext.P-4, had re-presented the complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court-XVII, Saidapet, Chennai, but that the officials of the said court had refused to take the case papers on file on the ground that the practice in the Magistrate court in Tamil Nadu is that in such cases, the case papers are to be transmitted directly from the previous court to the proper court. As it is beyond dispute that consequent to Ext.P-2 order dated 24.2.2015, the complainant had presented his complaint before the Magistrate Court at Aluva on 25.3.2015. It is pointed out by the petitioner that though Ext.P-2 order was rendered on 24.2.2015, the case papers were actually handed over to the complainant much later and immediately after receiving the case papers, he had re-presented the complaint before the Magistrate's Court at Aluva on 25.3.2015, which is very much within the time limit of 30 days stipulated by the Apex Court in D.R.Rathod's case supra.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 805 - V Sen - Full Document
1