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

S.P.GARG
Anil Jindal – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

S.P. Garg, J.—Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Anil Jindal to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 11.01.2016 of Juvenile Justice Board-II whereby copy of the chargesheet in case FIR No.518/2015 registered at Police Station Chhawala was not provided to him. The revision petition is contested by the respondents.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The petitioner is the complainant; the FIR was lodged on his complaint on 23.08.2015 when he reported that his son was kidnapped by respondent No.2 and was not traceable. Shortly after the registration of the FIR, body of his missing son was recovered. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.2 and his cousin (respondent No.3) before the Juvenile Justice Board-II.

3. It is urged by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner has filed proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to seek appropriate directions to ensure fair/proper investigation; the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation carried out in this case. He had suspected the involvement of some other individuals whose role h

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