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

2006 Supreme(P&H) 3617

RAJIVE BHALLA
Joga Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


Judgment

1. The petitioner, filed a private complaint under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 379, 506, 323, 34 of the IPC. On 8-1-2003, as the petitioner did not appear, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint, for want of prosecution. The petitioner, preferred a revision, which was dismissed by the order dated 1-10-2003, on the ground that the revisional Court had no jurisdiction to entertan the revision.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the absence of the petitioner /complainant did not empower the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint, for want of prosecution. The petitioner had concluded his pre- summoning evidence and, therefore, the learned trial Court was required to appraise the complaint and the evidence on record and thereafter proceed to dismiss the complaint in terms of Section 203 Cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) or issue process in terms of Section 204 of the Code. It is contended that Chapter XV of the Code, prescribes the procedure to be followed, namely; at the pre-summoning stage. At this stage, the stattory provisions that govern the jurisdiction of a










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