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

2009 Supreme(Raj) 1588

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE
Remesh Chand – Appellant
Versus
Bhan Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Jai Raj Tantia on behalf Ajay Tantia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Anoop Dhand, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filled against the order dated 06.10.2001, whereby the learned Magistrate had rejected the application, filed by the accused-petitioner for recalling the order of cognizance.

2. Suffice it to say that in view of the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned court does have the jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance on the application filed by the accused-petitioner, who appears before him on service of the summon. Needless to say that the principle laid down in the case of K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, (1992) 1 SCC 217 has been over ruled by the Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 388 .

3. Consequently, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits.Petition Dismissed.

*******


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