Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)M/S. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs State on 24 April, 2001
16. Further, it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
M/s. Skipper Beverages P. Ltd Vs. State 2002 CRI. L. J. NOC
333(Delhi) that :-
Mr. Amit Khera vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 11 August, 2010
6. Ld. counsel for the revisionist addressed arguments on the
line of grounds as taken in the instant revision petition. He forcefully
argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as
Ld Magistrate was duty bound to order for registration of FIR as the
facts averred in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable
offences. It is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside
and the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed
by passing appropriate directions for registration of the FIR in the
instant case. Ld counsel has relied upon judgments of Apex Court in
Lalita Kumari Vs State of UP, (2014) (1) JCC 1, and of Delhi High
Court in Amit Khera Vs State of NCT of Delhi, 2010 Vol. IV JCC 2515.
Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr on 10 January, 2017
12. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nishu Wadhwa vs
Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr on 10 January, 2017 observed at para 13 :-
Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel vs Dhirubhai Sambhubhai Kakadia on 6 January, 1997
15. Reliance is placed upon the judgment titled as Arvindbhai
Ravjibhai Patel Vs. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai reported in 1998 (1)
Crimes 351, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court took strong exception to the
growing tendency of asking the police to investigate cases under Section
156(3) of the Code and advised the Magistrates not to pass orders
mechanically. It was held that:-
Taron Mohan vs State & Anr on 25 January, 2021
17. In my considered view, once an application under section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. is moved before a Magistrate, he has two options. He
can either send the case for investigation to concerned Police Station in
the facts and circumstances of a particular case or instead of doing so,
he may opt for taking cognizance on the complaint of the complainant,
may proceed to record the testimony of the complainant and his
witnesses in pre-summoning evidence and thereafter, may decide
whether a case for summoning of accused is made out or not. Once, the
Magistrate has opted to exercise his discretion of not sending the matter
for investigation, this court, while exercising the power of revisional
jurisdiction, cannot substitute its own opinion with the opinion of the
Ld. Magistrate. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Taron Mohan v.
State & Anr, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, Hon'ble Delhi High Court
has observed as under:-
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr on 16 January, 2015
In the above case also conviction of the accused was
recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by
substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's
order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in
substituting its views and that too without any legal basis."