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

1997 Supreme(Kar) 434

H.N.NARAYAN
C. V. GOVINDARAJULU – Appellant
Versus
R. V. BHASKAR – Respondent


Advocates:
K.PRABHAKARA REDDY, M.T.NANAIAH, M.V.DEVARAJ

( 1 ) ALL these revisions are directed against the common order dt. 4-4-95 passed by the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, accepting the final 'b' report and consequently dismissing the complaint.

( 2 ) SINCE common questions of facts and law are involved in all these revision petitions, they are consolidated for the purpose of disposal.

( 3 ) A few facts necessary for the disposal of these proceedings are as hereunder : The petitioner herein filed a complaint under S. 200, Cr. P. C. before the learned Magistrate requesting him to take cognizance of the offences punishable under S. 120 (b), 419, 420, 468, 471, 114 r/w 34, IPC. The said complaint was referred to the jurisdictional police for investigation and report u/s. 156 (3), Cr. P. C. The Chickpete police who have investigated the matter, filed a 'b' report holding that the complaint is of civil nature. This 'b' report is challenged by the complainant by filing a protest petition. The learned Magistrate after considering the complaint allegations, took cognizance of the offences alleged and proceeded to record the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses and passed this impugned order by dismi














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