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

2000 Supreme(All) 1253

S.K.AGARWAL
DINESH CHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
RAJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,

S. K. AGARWAL, J.

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



































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