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

2006 Supreme(SC) 276

B.P.SINGH, ALTAMAS KABIR
NARMADA PRASAD SONKAR ALIAS RAMU – Appellant
Versus
SARDAR AVTAR SINGH CHABARA – Respondent


ORDER

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the caveator.

2. Special leave is granted.

3. Having perused the material placed before us, we are satisfied that no objection can be taken to the order of the High Court quashing the order dated 30-7-2005, Annexure 1 to the petition, but there is no justification for quashing the criminal complaint itself. If the Magistrate had not followed the procedure and failed to apply his mind as required by law, the order issuing process could be quashed, but the Magistrate should be directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh order in accordance with law.

4. In our view, the High Court should not have quashed the complaint itself. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court to the extent it quashed the complaint itself and direct the Magistrate to hear the parties afresh and proceed in accordance with law.

5. This appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent stated above.

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