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

2000 Supreme(All) 980

B.K.RATHI
SWARN MANJAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
RAGHUBIR SINGH

RATHI, J.


( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P. C. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows :

( 2 ) THE opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against the revisionist and three others for offences under Section 406, I. P. C. and 138 N. I. Act which was case No. 792 of 1998 pending before VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. and thereafter passed the order under Section 204, Cr. P. C. summoning the revisionist. In compliance of the process issued against the revisionist, the revisionist appeared and filed objections pleading that no case is made out against her and therefore, the order of summoning her under Section 204, Cr. P. C. be recalled. The application was not considered on the merits. On the other hand, it was rejected only on the ground that objections against the order for issuing summons are not maintainable in view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of U. P. , 2000 (1) JIC 399. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the revisionist has approached this Court.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri Raghubir Singh, learned couns
















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