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

2004 Supreme(All) 1847

AMAR SARAN
Mohan Shukla, Late Brij Nath Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.SHUKLA,

AMAR SARAN, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

( 2 ) THIS application under Section 482 Cr. P. C has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings in complaint case No. 3708 of 2000 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 10, Ballia.

( 3 ) THE basic ground for quashing the complaint proceedings arising out of an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C was that complaint proceedings were initiated on an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C dated 5. 8. 2000.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants contends that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C could never be treated as a complaint and for this purpose the learned counsel has principally relied upon two decisions given by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the cases of Ram Anuj dubey v. State of U. P. 2003 (2) A. Cr. R. 1897 and Surya Nath Yadav v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2003 (3) A. Cr. R. 2729. These decisions in turn relied upon another Single Judge decision in the case of Dinesh Chandra v. State of U. P. , 2000 (41) ACC 831.

( 5 ) IN the present case after perusing the application under Sectio














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