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

1976 Supreme(P&H) 163

RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL
Sarup Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment

1. Briefly the case of the petitioner is that he had been working as a Secretary of Nanhera Co-operative Agricultural Service Society for about 20 years. One Banwari son of Kundan Lal Saini, resident of village Nanhera, Tehsil Naraingarh, filed complaint against the petitioner under S.408/420, Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code), in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, on May 24, 1976. The Magistrate, on the same day, passed the following order:-

"Complaint presented today. The same be registered. Now the complaint to come up for the statement of the complainant on 29-5-1976."

On May 29, 1976, the complaint came up before the Magistrate for hearing. He on that day passed the following order:-

"The case is cognizable. S.H.O. Naraingarh is ordered to make an investigation of the case under S.156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code."

It is stated by the petitioner that the order dated May 24, 1976, shows that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint on that date and in case he had done so, he could not direct investigation by the police, under S.156 (3) of the Code. He further states that such an investigation could be o






















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