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

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 21375

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JYOTI SINGH, J
DARSHAN SINGH NEGI & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
STATE & ANR. – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: Ms. Nandita Rao, Mr. Mayank Pachauri, Mr. Hasan Zaidi

ORDER

% 15.03.2024

1. This petition was filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.192/2022 dated 31.03.2022 under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘1989 Act’) and Sections 506/34 IPC registered at PS: G.T.B. Enclave.

2. Notice was issued recording the contention of the Petitioners that FIR was registered pursuant to an order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts on a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., however, this was a jurisdictional error as the learned MM could not have passed the order in view of Section 14 of the 1989 Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in W.P.(CRL) 856/2022 Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa , (2013) 10 SCC 705 , in this context. Learned ASC points out that on 06.07.2022, it was brought to the notice of the Court that Supreme Court in Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Others , 2021 SCC Online SC 974, observed that in the second proviso to Section 14 which reads as “Courts so establ

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