Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Krishnana Manchanda vs State & Ors on 15 March, 2012 cites

Sunil Mehdiratta vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2001

7. No doubt, this Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would interfere if there is an illegality committed by the learned Trial Court or there is an abuse of the process of the Court. There is no denial to the fact that once a complaint is filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the Crl.M.C. 865/2010 Page 5 of 7 Magistrate has the option of either directing registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or proceeding as a complaint case by examining the complainant and if the facts so warrant conduct a limited enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. While exercising this discretion the Court has to apply its judicial mind. As held in Sunil Mehdiratta (supra), discretion means use of private and independent thought. The Division bench of this Court in that case observed:
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ram Swarup vs Mohd. Javed Razack & Anr on 23 February, 2005

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on the other hand contends that there is no illegality in the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing not to register the FIR and proceeding as the complaint case. Relying upon Subhkaran Luharuka S/o Late K.P. Luharuka and Shree Ram Mills Ltd.Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Utility Premises Pvt. Ltd. Crl. M.C. Nos. 6122-23/2005 and 6133-34/2005 decided on 09.07.2010 it is contended that no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner in case the Magistrate himself holds an enquiry into the matter. The first complaint made by the Petitioner does not disclose any offence and a perusal of the subsequent complaint filed by the Petitioner and her other sons whom she is siding with Crl.M.C. 865/2010 Page 2 of 7 would show that improvements have been made so as to make out a case for registration of FIR and allegations of robbery have been introduced. The impugned order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate gave option to the Petitioner to proceed as a complaint case, however the complainant did not examine herself and pursued the matter. Finally the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution on the 28th July, 2010. Reliance is placed on Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. M/s. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd. & Anr. 2009 (1) JCC 405 (SC); Ram Swarup Vs. Mohd. Javed Razack & Anr. 2005 (1) JCC 454 and Rashmi Malhotra Vs. SHO & Anr. 2002 (2) JCC 933(Del).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - B P Singh - Full Document

Mrs. Rashmi Malhotra vs Sho And Anr. on 14 May, 2002

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on the other hand contends that there is no illegality in the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing not to register the FIR and proceeding as the complaint case. Relying upon Subhkaran Luharuka S/o Late K.P. Luharuka and Shree Ram Mills Ltd.Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Utility Premises Pvt. Ltd. Crl. M.C. Nos. 6122-23/2005 and 6133-34/2005 decided on 09.07.2010 it is contended that no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner in case the Magistrate himself holds an enquiry into the matter. The first complaint made by the Petitioner does not disclose any offence and a perusal of the subsequent complaint filed by the Petitioner and her other sons whom she is siding with Crl.M.C. 865/2010 Page 2 of 7 would show that improvements have been made so as to make out a case for registration of FIR and allegations of robbery have been introduced. The impugned order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate gave option to the Petitioner to proceed as a complaint case, however the complainant did not examine herself and pursued the matter. Finally the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution on the 28th July, 2010. Reliance is placed on Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. M/s. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd. & Anr. 2009 (1) JCC 405 (SC); Ram Swarup Vs. Mohd. Javed Razack & Anr. 2005 (1) JCC 454 and Rashmi Malhotra Vs. SHO & Anr. 2002 (2) JCC 933(Del).
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1