Dilip Kumar vs Brajraj Shrivastava - 2023 Supreme(SC) 930

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 930

ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL
Dilip Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Brajraj Shrivastava – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A.K. Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Rishi Raj, Advocate, Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate, Mr. M. Dutta, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sudhanshu S. Chaudhary, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav, Advocate, Mr. Jaydeep, Advocate, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, Advocate, Mr. Akshay C. Shrivastava, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Advocate, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Abhay S. Oka, J. - A complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.P.C.) was filed by the first respondent showing the appellant as an accused and alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 500, 504, 506, 295-A, 298, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Considering the limited controversy involved in this appeal, we are not adverting to the allegations made in the complaint.

2. On 22nd August, 2008, the learned Magistrate passed an Order directing holding of an inquiry under sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The order indicates that the learned Magistrate intended to himself hold an inquiry. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of only the first respondent/complainant and passed an order dated 18th September, 2008, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, the High Court has interfered with the said order on a limited ground. The High Court was of the view that there was no proper inquiry made by the learned Magistrate in terms of subSection (1) of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C and therefore, the High Court remitted the complaint to the learned Magistrate fro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document