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

2005 Supreme(All) 739

R.P.YADAV
MAHAMANDLESHWAR SWAMI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates:
Mahendra Pratap, Praveen Singh, Vijay Vikram,

R. P. YADAV, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 1-3-2005 passed by learned Magistrate rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. with an observation that since the damage is said to have been caused by fabricating false document, civil proceedings may be initiated.

3. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this observation is not correct, if an act of the party gives right to an action for criminal proceedings and also for civil proceedings then the criminal Court can not refuse to proceed with the criminal case on the ground that civil action may also lies.

4. In may opinion, this observation is correct so rejection of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. on the aforesaid ground was not correct and legal.

5. This petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is quashed.

6. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioner under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C.

Petition allowed.


.

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