SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 134

M.M.DUTT, RANGANATH MISRA
Jagdish Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Ram Nandan Yadav – Respondent


( 1 ). Special leave granted.

( 2 ). We are of the view that the High court should not have interfered with the investigation made by the Criminal Investigation Department into the second FIR registered by Naya-Gaon P. S. Case No. 33 of 1986. In view of the fact that the two cases (being P. S. Cases Nos. 32 and 33 of 1986 related to the same incident it was open to the Magistrate after the two reports came to be placed before him to consider what action according to law is called for. Accordingly we set aside the order of the High court but we leave it open to the trial court that if in course of trial, evidence appears against any specific person, the court would be free to deal with the situation according to the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top