Ajay Gaur v. Vijay Gaur & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 14 Jan 2015 · 2015:DHC:10635
Manmohan Singh
CRL.M.C.119/2015
2015:DHC:10635
criminal petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order directing FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC but held the trial court may proceed with the complaint under Section 204 CrPC; petition dismissed as cited precedent was inapplicable.

Full Text
Translation output
$-53 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C.119/2015
AJAY GAUR o .
Petitioner
Through Mr.AmitJain,Adv.with Mr.SushendraK.Chauhan,Adv.
VERSUS
VIJAYGAUR&ORS Respondents
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLEMR.JUSTICE MANMOHANSINGH
14.01.2015 Crl.M.A.No.537/2015(exemption)
Exemptionallowed,subjecttojustexceptions.
The applicationis disposed of.
Crl.M.C.No.ll9/2015& Crl.M.A.No.53r;/7ni^ On the basis ofthecomplaintfiled by the petitioner,the orderdated
14"October,2014 was passed by the learned MM directing the SHO to registerFIRagainstrespondentsNo.l&2. Thesaidorderwaschallenged by respondents No.l & 2 in Criminal Revision No.21/2014. The said revisionpetition wasallowed byorderdated 5'"December,2014. Relevant paras 14& 15ofthesaid orderread as under:-
ORDER

14. In view of the foregoing discussion and facts and the circumstances ofthe case I am allowing the Revision Petition 1edandsetting asidetheimpugnedorderoftheLd.TrialCourt 2015:DHC:10635 whereby the directions had been given to the registration ofthe case under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C.

15. Before, however, concluding this Order I would like to add here that the Ld. Trial Court may proceed with the complaint if it so considers appropriate, as a complaint case even in a case ofnon cognizable offence been committed may still be maintainable and maytake a decision as to the issuance ofprocess under Section204ofthe Code ofCriminalProcedure after such evidence as led by the complainant has been recorded." Learnedcounselforthepetitionerhasreferredthejudgmentpassedby Allahabad High Courtinthe case ofChandanSon ofAanganu vs.Stateof UttarPradesh,dated 17^*^ October,2006. Having gonethrough thesame,I am ofthe view that the facts in the present case are materially different. Therefore,the saidjudgmentis notapplicabletothefactsand circumstances ofthe present case. Thereisnomeritmthepetition. Thesameisaccordinglydismissed.