REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Mujammil Khan Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

M/S INDIA CARAT PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
PAKHANDO AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
KALLU AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
MITRASEN YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
TULA RAM VS. KISHORE SINGH [REFERRED TO]
TULA RAM VS. KISHORE SINGH [REFERRED TO]
H S BAINS DIRECTOR SMALL SAVING CUM DEPUTY SECRETARY FINANCE PUNJAB CHANDIGARH VS. STATE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAKASH P HINDUJA [REFERRED TO]
GANGADHAR JANARDAN MHATRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MINU KUMARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHD YUSUF VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shiv Pal Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for respondent-State. None appeared on behalf of Respondent-2 though the case is called in revise and name of Sri D.C. Tiwari, Advocate is shown in cause list.

(2.) Final report was submitted by police in Case Crime No. 80 of 2009, under Sections 364/420 IPC, whereagainst protest petition was filed. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich by means of impugned order dated 23.12.2009 rejected final report, accepted protest petition and summoned applicants to face trial.

(3.) It is contended that order dated 23.12.2009 shows that Magistrate has examined and taken into consideration the material placed alongwith protest petition. That being so Magistrate could not have proceeded in the matter as police case but must have proceeded as complaint case and could have summoned accused only after recording statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

Click here to view full judgment.

MUJAMMIL KHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address