AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.C. Deepak, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the application dated 28112003 (Annexure 1) discloses the commission of
cognizable offence. It was obligatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to have directed for the registration of the case and its investigation but
the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 28112003 and the revisional Court vide his order dated 2522004 refused to register the case. His
contention is that the applicant can be given such relief under Section 482 petition and in support of his contention he has relied upon the cases of
Krishnan v. Krishna reported in 1997 JIC 406 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 987 and Laxmi Bhai Patel v. Shyam Kumar Patel, 2002(2) JIC 42 (SC).
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the orders dated 28112003
and 1522004 passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider the matter within ten days from
the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order and direct for the registration of the case on the basis of Annexure 1 and for its
investigation.
With these observations, the application is disposed of.