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

2016 Supreme(MP) 11

ROHIT ARYA
Satyendra Singh Sikarwar – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
R. K. Sharma for petitioner; Kamal Jain, Government Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER

1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with a grievance that registration of case by respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer upon a complaint filed by respondent No.7 was without jurisdiction and thereafter direction to the Sub-Registrar by him vide communication dated 4.12.2015 to ensure registration of FIR is also in excess of his authority as Sub-Divisional Officer.

2. It is contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer may be an Executive Magistrate but he draws jurisdiction to register a case under the provisions of an Act. He cannot wield his power by executive fiat and issue directions to the Sub-Registrar for registration of an FIR on complaint filed by respondent No.7. If such course of action is permitted to continue by Executive Magistrates, the same may lead to a state of chaos as persons having any grievance, instead of filing an FIR, may approach such Executive Magistrates seeking direction for registration of FIRs. It is submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is a self contained Code whereunder exhaustive provisions have been made in the matter of registration of FIR and also for investigation at







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