Back
RAJEEV SINGH
Ram Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
ORDER :
(Rajeev Singh, J.)
1. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, and perused the record.
3. The present revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 05.07.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya in Case Crime No. 90 of 2017, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Phaphund, District Auraiya (Ram Prakash vs. Sumit Narayan & Others), and remand the case for reconsideration.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant. Thereafter, investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and with the collusion of opposite party No. 2, final report was submitted ignoring the injuries and other evidences. Thereafter, protest petition was filed and the C.J.M., Auraiya passed by the impugned order in which it was categorically observed that the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet ignoring the evidence available on the case diary. He further submitted that the final report No. 90 of 2019 dated 31.08.2019 was rejected by the court below and ob
(1) In exercising revisional power, Sessions Court cannot quash cognizance and summoning order passed by Magistrate.(2) Plea of alibi of accused shall be examined only during trial at stage of defenc....
The Magistrate's discretion in accepting or rejecting police final reports is paramount, and the Revisional Court's role is limited to ensuring no legal errors occurred in the lower court's proceedin....
A Magistrate must provide clear reasons when disagreeing with a negative Final Report, and failing to do so renders the order unsustainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that orders made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register and investigate a case are not open to revision at the instance of ....
Magistrate was not bound by the final report submitted by the police after investigation. Once he has taken cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. he may have taken into consideration the evidenc....
A Magistrate must ensure sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused without engaging in a trial-like analysis of evidence.
An order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing police to register an FIR is not revisable and is considered an interlocutory order, thus barred under Section 397(2).
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
