High CourtsSingle Bench(2008) 05 AHC CK 0046

Mohd. Kayyum vs State of U.P., Mohd. Yunus and Ram Ballabh Agrawal

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 9 May 2008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amar Saran, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 341 words

Amar Saran, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.

1.

This application has been filed against the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the In-charge Sessions Judge, Mathura whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the revision, which was filed against the order of the Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate has treated the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint.

2.

In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Aleque Padamsee and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the learned Magistrate is empowered to pass such an order.

3.

There is no illegality in the said order.

4.

However, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that as certain properties viz. generators, compressors, motors etc., which have been stolen from the applicant''s factory for which he has nominated the accused, have to be recovered and in the circumstances an order for police investigation ought to have been passed.

5.

u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it has been provided that when the Magistrate is considering the complaint, he can postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit.

Under proviso to the said Section there is, however, a restriction on giving such directions when the case is triable by the court of session or where the complaint has not been made by a court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present, (if any,) have been examined on oath u/s 200 Cr.P.C.

6.

Admittedly, the present case u/s 406 420 379 IPC is not triable by the court of session and after examination of the complainant and the witnesses, if any, u/s 200 Cr.P.C. the applicant can move any application as he deems fit in getting the investigation made in this matter and if the court is satisfied, he can even issue such directions for investigation at that stage.

7.

With these observations, this application is rejected.