Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
D.N.PATEL, C.HARI SHANKAR
Shrikant Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's requests to police. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's decision to not issue general orders. (Para 2) |
| 3. expectations from police to follow sc decisions. (Para 3) |
| 4. court rejects guidelines based on assumptions. (Para 4) |
| 5. adequate provisions exist in law. (Para 5) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
D.N. Patel, Chief Justice (Oral)--This so-called Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following prayers:
"1. Direct the Respondent for compliance of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court related to mandatory Registration of an FIR as decided in the case of Lalita Kumari vs state of Uttar Pradesh, 2013.
2. Direct the Respondent for framing proper rule and regulation for entertaining informant with good behaviour so that informant can approach police authorities without any hesitation.
3. Direct the Respondent for entertaining of complaint of non-cognizable offences and make the respondent duty bound to send it to the magistrate of local concern jurisdiction u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. 1973 because a common man do not know how to deal with the complaint case and he remains in misconception that police is doing nothing in the case.
4. Direct Respondent
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
