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

1992 Supreme(AP) 348

IYYAPU PANDURANGA RAO
Y. Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Mahee Handlooms Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


IYYAPU PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

( 2 ) THIS petition is directed under S. 482, Cr. P. C. to call for the records relating to C. C. No. 184/1991 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and to quash the same and direct the learned Magistrate to proceed further as contemplated under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brief the Code ).

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed a criminal case under S. 200, Cr. P. C. against the respondents 1 and 2 under sections 138a and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said complaint was filed under dated 19-2-1991. On the same day the learned Magistrate referred the case under S. 156 (3) of the Code to the police for further enquiry; on 20-2-1991 on the basis of the said complaint a crime was registered in Crl. No. 40/91 on the file of P. S. Amberpet; they further enquired into the matter and laid charge sheet against the respondents 1 and 2 which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and while he was proceeding further, alleging that taking cognizance of the case by the Magistrate on a police report is not warranted as per the provisions




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