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

T.P.SHARMA
Samad Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Mr. N.S. Dhurandhar, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer.
For the Non-applicant No. 2: None.

ORDER

T.P. Sharma, J.— The applicant has filed this petition for quashment of the criminal/preventive proceeding in Criminal Case No. 214/2002 pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balod whereby the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 7.9.2002 has initiated the proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).

2. The order is challenged on the ground that without following the procedure prescribed and without passing any preliminary order under Section 111 of the Code or without passing any order under sub-section (3) of Section 116 of the Code, the Court below has passed the order sending the applicant in jail and afterwards released him on bail and thereby committed an illegality.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in case of proceeding under Section 110 of the Code, passing of preliminary order under Section 111 of the Code is sine qua non and in case of any emergency, the Court below was competent to pass an interim order in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 116 of the Code for execution of bond for good behaviour and maintaining the peac

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