Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Sampat Ram S/o Roopa Ram – Appellant
Versus
State, Through Pp – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Churu whereby the learned Judge dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant complainant submitted a complaint before the learned Special Judge, SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu against the respondent which was sent for investigation to the concerned police station. After investigation the police filed a negative FR that no case is made out. Thereafter, the complainant filed a protest petition before the court below. Another FIR No.136/2018 came to be filed by respondent against the petitioner complainant. In the said FIR also, negative FR was filed by the police.
3. The learned court below after hearing both the parties and considering the fact that police has filed negative FR and a compromise has arrived at between the parties, accept the FR in both the FIRs and rejected the complaint filed by the complainant petitioner.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that without considering the material aspect of the matter, the tr
The court upheld the rejection of the complaint based on the negative final reports filed by the police and the absence of a prima facie case against the respondents.
The court upheld the final report by police stating no case was made out against the respondents, emphasizing the necessity of thorough investigation and detailed reasoning in judicial decisions.
The main legal point established is that the court will uphold the acceptance of a Final Report and rejection of a protest petition if no prima facie case is made out against the accused based on tho....
The court upheld the rejection of the complaint based on the thorough investigation and valid grounds presented by the police, which led to the conclusion that the allegations were false.
A prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Act, 1989 and there is no provision of leading pre charge evidence before court of Sessions, no illegality....
The trial court erred in taking cognizance against the appellants due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness statements.
The trial court must show disagreement with the conclusion of the Investigating Officer before taking cognizance of the offence.
The main legal point established is that a complaint alleging offenses under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not barred by limitation, and the court directed a fresh enquiry under Section 20....
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
