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

2024 Supreme(Pat) 931

SHAILENDRA SINGH
Neelam Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner: M/s Indradeo Prasad, Shiv Shankar, Vinod Kumar, Subodh Kumar.
For the State : Ms. Ansuiya Jaiswal, APP.

ORDER

The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed to set aside the cognizance order dated 04.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gaya, by which the cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 341, 379, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) has been taken against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this case is completely of civil nature and O.P. No.2 by filing complaint has tried to give the colour of criminal wrong to the alleged non-execution of a Sale Deed.

3. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in (2013) 1 BLJR 204 and the relevant paragraph no.7 of the judgment upon which reliance has been placed is being reproduced as under:—

“7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts a

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