S.K.AGARWAL
DINESH CHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent
This revision has been filed by the applicants challenging the order directing the registration and investigation of the allegations made in the application of the opposite party by Magistrate dated 2-7- 97. I have admitted this revision and directed the same to be connected with these 4 writ petitions which were referred to for consideration by a larger bench comprising of 3 or more judges of this Court. The reference was made by Honble Palok Basu and Honble J. C. Gupta, JJ.
2. On an examination on of the refer ence order what I could gather from the paragraph "in order words if it is possible to hold that Madhu Bala lays down as a matter of Rule that a mere application which will not be or may not be a complaint as envisaged by the provisions of Section 200/190 C. P. C. also has to be registered and investigated just because a Magistrate pas ses such an order, then only the orders of the Magistrate Courts in these four writ petitions can be sustained. If it is not pos sible to hold what has been stated above and the emphasised portion from the para graph quoted above is taken to be the real legal proposition following from the Supreme Court Judgment, then it mus
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.