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

2008 Supreme(AP) 543

G.YETHIRAJULU
Kareem Fatima – Appellant
Versus
Habeeb Omer – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: Sri C. Praveen Kumar
COUNSEL FOR 1ST RESPONDENT: Sri K. Suresh Reddy

ORDER:

Petitioners are A-1 to A-4 in Crime No.103 of 2001 of Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. The police, after investigation, filed a final report before the III Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, stating that it is a case of 'Mistake of Fact'. The complainant filed a protest petition and the same was dismissed by the trial Court holding that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short - 'the Code'), bars the taking cognizance of offences under Sections 471, 475 or 476 IPC and that the documents filed by the complainant are only Xerox copies of lists of jahez articles and though it is alleged that they are forged and fabricated documents, no complaint is made by the Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.70 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who allowed the petition by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the case according to law. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused prefer






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