Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)

The Maharashtra State Electricit ... vs Dr.Ram P.Kishanrao Chidrawar on 20 October, 2011

It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that even as per statement of complainant, on the basis of which FIR in this case was registered, he i.e. complainant was crossing the road simply by raising hand towards the incoming traffic. There is evidence that spot was a Zebra­crossing. In such a circumstance even if he i.e. complainant was hit by the petitioner driving a motorcycle, it was complainant himself who was at fault and not the petitioner. As per Ld. Counsel, complainant should have been accused and not the petitioner. Explaining that Ld. MM had authority not to serve notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. even if the petitioner was summoned to face trial. Ld. Counsel attracted attention of this court towards Section 158 Cr.P.C. where the magistrate could stop proceedings if it was found that no offence was made out. Ld. Counsel relies upon a case titled as State of Maharashtra Vs. Ram Pandharinath Chidrawar 2007 Cri. L. J. 827.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1