PANKAJ JAIN
Aditya Beri – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Pankaj Jain, J.
By way of instant order I intend to dispose off the aforesaid two petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, for the sake of convenience the facts are being culled out from a petition bearing CRM-M No.56496-2023.
2. Present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against complaint dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-20), Orders dated 26.10.2023 (Annexures P-36 & P-37) and FIR No. 11 dated 14.01.2021 (Annexure P-24) registered under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Sushant Lok, Gurugram along with all subsequent proceedings arising thereto.
3. The facts leading to the present case narrate a long tale. The complaint was preferred by respondent No.2 before the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, Haryana against nine accused. Accused No. 1 is a company and accused Nos.2 to 9 were stated to be the directors of the said company. The complainant alleged that he met accused No.2 -Sikandar Singh and his family in the year 2015. He was induced by accused No.2- Sikandar Singh to start a 'Affordable Housing Project' in Gurugram to reap profits. Believing the advice the complainant formed a compan
C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.
GHCL Employees Stock Option v. India Infoline Ltd.
Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal
K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
M/s Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd.
Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat
Mangal Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra
Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.
Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam
Ram Dev Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat
Rishpal Singh v. State of U.P.
Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State of NCT
Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka
Srimvas Gundluri v. M/s Speco Electric Power Construction Corporation
State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh
State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (SC) (2014) 3 SCC 659
State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam
State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
Sushil Sethi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh
The magistrate must ensure a complaint discloses a cognizable offence before directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and a detailed affidavit is required to support such applicat....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to determine whether to direct an investigation, particularly in civil disputes masquerading as criminal matters.
Direction for Police Investigation – Option to direct registration of case and its investigation by police should be exercised where some “investigation” is required, which is of a nature that is not....
The Magistrate must judiciously exercise discretion in registering FIRs under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ensuring that mechanical refusals are avoided when cognizable offences are disclosed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for judicial reasoning and compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC before resorting to Section 156(3) of the CrPC, as ....
The Magistrate has a duty to order an investigation when a cognizable offense is disclosed in a complaint, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as forgery.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.