Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA, JJ
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reference under section 395 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background (Para 3) |
| 3. submissions on behalf of union of india (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. submissions on behalf of govt. nct of delhi (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. submissions on behalf of amicus curiae (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. analysis and findings (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. the reference made by (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present reference under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘CrPC’) has been made by Sh. Harjyot Singh Bhalla, learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short, ‘ACMM’), South, New Delhi, in Case No. 17236/2018 arising out of FIR No. 424/2018 registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, titled as ‘State v. Meenakshi & Ors.’ vide order dated 30.07.2019.
“Whether Proviso to Section 311A of the CrPC is constitutionally valid?”
3. Before adverting to answer the Reference, it would be appropriate to refer to the factual background in which the aforesaid order was passed by the learned ACMM which is thus: -
ii) On 30.07.2019, learned Counsel for the Complainant appeared before the learned ACMM and raised an objection that the sai
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
