N.L.TIBREWAL
Nathu – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
N.L. Tibrewal, J.-Two short, but, important questions of law are involved in this petition. The questions are:
(i) When Magistrate can be said to have taken the cognizance?
(ii) Whether after taking cognizance of a cognizable offence, the power under Section 156 (3), CrPC can be invoked by the Magistrate. In other words, at what stage a complaint can be forwarded to the concerned police station for an investigation in exercise of powers under Section 156(3)?
2. The above questions have arisen in the following circumstances: Non-petitioner No. 2 herein, made a complaint on July 14, 1993 before the Court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, No. 6, Jaipur City against the petitioner and other co-accused persons alleging that the petitioner and other accused-persons came to his shop to purchase a tractor was sold to them after demonstration and trial and delivery was handed over on the assurance that the price shall be paid on the sanction of the loan from Aravali Land Development Bank, where they have applied for grant of loan. According to the complainant right from (he very beginning, the accused had no intention to pay the price of the tractor and on a false repre
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.