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

1997 Supreme(Raj) 1240

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohd.Yamin, J.
Gajendra Nath - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cri. Misc. Petition No.106 of 1995.
Decided On : 15-07-1997

Advocates:
For the petitioner:Mr. Ajay Tatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.M. Poddar, P.P.

Notice requirement before taking cognizance under Section 182 Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

Cognizance - Section 182 Indian Penal Code - Notice Requirement

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a first information report related to an occurrence, but the police submitted a final report without giving notice to the complainant. The Magistrate took cognizance under section 182 Indian Penal Code without issuing any notice to the complainant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that it was necessary for the Magistrate to issue notice to the petitioner before deciding to take cognizance for the offense of dropping the proceedings.

Issues: Whether cognizance can be taken under Section 182 Indian Penal Code without giving any notice to the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the precedent (Bhagwat Singh vs. Commissioner of Police) and concluded that it was necessary for the Magistrate to issue notice to the petitioner before deciding to take cognizance for the offense of dropping the proceedings.

Final Decision: The order of the learned Magistrate dated 5.3.92 was quashed, and the Misc. Petition was allowed.

JUDGMENT

1. :- The short point in this Misc. Petition is whether cognizance can be taken under Section 182 Indian Penal Code without giving any notice to the complainant.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. Petitioner had submitted first information report before Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer on 19th September, 1991 in relation to an occurrence took place on the same day at about 11 a.m. A case under section 379 Indian Penal Code was registered, but the police after investigation submitted final report. Learned Magistrate did not issue any notice to the complainant and straight way cognizance on complaint under section 182 Indian Penal Code which was filed with final report. It is against this order, the petitioner had to knock the doors of this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1285 (Bhagwat Singh vs. Commissioner of Police ) and submitted that it was necessary for the Magistrate to issue notice to the petitioner before deciding to take cognizance for offence of dropping the proceedings. Learned PP is fair enough to concede that such a notice was necessary. In view of this fact, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 5.3.92 should be quashed.

4. Consequently, the Misc. Petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 5.3.92 in file no. 144/92 is hereby quashed.Petition allowed.

*******


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 Back to top