NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Ghanshyam Tiwari S/o Late Khulu Ram – Appellant
Versus
Dwarikadhish Sahu S/o Late Shri Shivnath Sahu – Respondent
ORDER :
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
1.This revision has been preferred against the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by learned third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2023 arising out of the order dated 10.12.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the application filed by Respondents under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and vide impugned Revisional order dated 27.09.2023, the Additional Sessions Judge has remanded the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur for fresh adjudication giving direction to treat the application under Section 156(3) CrPC as complaint and proceed as per chapter XV of the CrPC.
2.Facts of the case, in brief are that, elder brother of the respondent No.1 namely Krishnachand died issue less, therefore, lands bearing khasra Nos, 307/1 area 0.04 acres, 308/1 area 0.02 acres, 297/2 area 2.40 acres, 386/4 area 0.51 acres, 386/6 area 0.51 acres, 309/2 area 0.01 acres, 310/1 area 0.02 acres, 383/3 and 384/3 area 4.11 acres, 340/1 area 0.06 acres and khasra No. 38/1 & 38/2 area 0.83 total 8.51 acres are situated at village Bijore, Patwari halka No. 20 Revenue Cir
Bhushan Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012(5) SCC 424
Darshan Singh Ramkrishna vs. State of Maharashtra 1972 1 SCR 571
Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. Narayana Reddy AIR 1976 SC 1672
Gopal Das vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1961 SC 986
H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab
Jamuna Singh Vs. Bhadai Shah AIR 1964 SC 1541
Kishun Singh & others Vs. State of Bihar 1993(2) SCC 16
Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani 2000(7) SCC 183
Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. State of W.B 1973 (3) SCC 753
Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat 2010(4) SCC 185
Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director 2014(2) SCC 62
The court clarified that a Magistrate's order for police investigation under Section 156(3) does not constitute taking cognizance of an offence, allowing for subsequent proceedings under the appropri....
A Magistrate cannot register a subsequent complaint under Section 200 CrPC based on the same facts after a previous complaint has been quashed, as it exceeds jurisdiction.
The word “cognizance” has not been defined under Cr.P.C. To unveil the legal quandary, a brief survey of 'Cognizance' would illuminate everything, clearing all concepts, therefore, this Court is refe....
Direction for Police Investigation – Option to direct registration of case and its investigation by police should be exercised where some “investigation” is required, which is of a nature that is not....
The Magistrate must judiciously exercise discretion in registering FIRs under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ensuring that mechanical refusals are avoided when cognizable offences are disclosed.
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to determine whether to direct an investigation, particularly in civil disputes masquerading as criminal matters.
Magistrate has to always apply his mind on the allegations in the complaint where he may use his powers under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. In this connection, it may be immediately added that where in an ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.