Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Naresh Kumar Kataria S/O Late Pokar Das vs Saraswati Arya W/O Sh. Ashok Kumar on 13 April, 2010 cites

M/S. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs State on 24 April, 2001

I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of Ld. Trial Court dt. 18.01.2010, which has been rightly passed relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2001 IV AD (Delhi) and V.P. Sharma (Dr.) Vs. State (N.C.T of Delhi) & Ors, 2009XAD(Delhi)701. In the present case also, the revisionist has only filed an application U/s 156(3) Cr. PC alleging that the principal of a school, where he was working had used certain words degrading his reputation, which fell foul of the provisions of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, and in the present case also the 10 petitioner/revisionist has chosen not to file a complaint U/s 200 Cr. PC and he wants to adopt a shortcut. Consequently, the Ld. Trial Court was justified in dismissing his application U/s 156(3) Cr. PC and putting up the matter for pre-summoning evidence. Even, otherwise all the prospective evidence which the petitioner/revisionist wanted to lead in this case, was well within his knowledge and reach and no field investigation was required on the part of the police to collect any evidence in this case on the complaint, filed by him before the Ld. Trial Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1085 - R C Chopra - Full Document

K.A. Kannappa Chetti vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 19 April, 1973

4. The judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist K. Kannan Vs. State (The superintendent of Police and The Inspector of Police, MANU/TN/2561/2009, (supra) is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, as in the said case there were allegations that certain accused persons had trespassed into the land of the complainant, armed with deadly weapons and they had also threatened the petitioner and his father- in-law with dire consequences, if they failed to vacate the land and they had also beaten him up with spade. In these circumstances, the FIR was ordered to be registered, whereas there are no such allegations in the present case warranting the custodial interrogation of the accused persons/respondents or collection of evidence by the police during the investigation.
Madras High Court Cites 154 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Sukhwasi Son Of Hulasi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 September, 2007

As per the above said Judgment, if a cognizable offence is disclosed through an application U/s 156(3) Cr. PC, the Magistrate has no option but to order for registration of FIR. It is further held in this judgment that application U/s 156(3) Cr. PC cannot be treated as a complaint. However, this judgment has been overruled by Division Bench of Allahbad Court, in case titled as Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P 2008 CRW 472 (Supra). I wish 4 it is an unintentional mistake on the part of Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 326 - Full Document
1