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

2010 Supreme(Raj) 1371

M.N.BHANDARI
Rajanti – Appellant
Versus
Manohar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:R.R. Bainsla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Tarun Jain and Laxman Meena, PP.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

2. Pursuant to private complaint matter was sent for investigation in view of provisions of section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. On investigation, police filed negative final report. The learned Magistrate accepted the same thereby refusing to take cognizance. A revision petition was filed by the complainant, which was then accepted and cognizance was taken against petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that revisional court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in view of section 398 Criminal Procedure Code. If at all the revisional court has accepted the revision petition the matter was required to be remanded to the court below as per aforesaid provision. Hence, it is prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2009. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that if the order is quashed and set aside on the grounds urged by learned counsel for petitioners then this court can direct for remand of the case to the Magistrate concerned pursuant to the observations made by revisional court.

4. To this, learned counsel for petitioners has no object




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