Full Text
Translation output
23#
% 16.12.2010
Present:- Mr. Anil Gael, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, APP for state.
+ Crl. M.C. No. 3166/2008
*
On the complaint of petitioner FIR No. 380 dated
"'' 24.08.2001 UIs 420146814711 120-B IPC was registered at
P.S. Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
The petitioner filed an application UIs 340 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate praying therein that action be taken against the Investigating Officer and accused
Asha Mittal. It was alleged that investigating officer had illegally withheld the statement UIs 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Asha
Mittal.
By the impugned order learned M.M. has imposed cost of
~5000 I- upon the petitioner while disJJ?-issing the application.
Trial Court has noted that Asha Mittal was not even an accused since application of petitioner UIs 190 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of Asha Mittal, had already been dismissed.
Revision against the aforesaid order has been dismissed
2010:DHC:10250 by the Additional Sessions Judge.
That is how petitioner is before this court by way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Non-filing of statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Asha Mittal in the court, in my view, will not attract action ufs 340 Cr.P.C. against the investigating officer. Similarly, no cause of action had arisen
~· against Asha Mittal for initiating any action under Section 340
Cr.P.C. since she was not even party to the proceedings.
Basic grievance of the petitioner is against the imposition of cost by the learned M.M. Since application was devoid of merits, in my view, learned M.M. was justified in imposing cost.
In the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the courts below. Petition is dismissed.
DECEMBER 16, 2010 pkv
A.K. PATHAK, J.
II
2010:DHC:10250
% 16.12.2010
Present:- Mr. Anil Gael, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, APP for state.
+ Crl. M.C. No. 3166/2008
*
On the complaint of petitioner FIR No. 380 dated
"'' 24.08.2001 UIs 420146814711 120-B IPC was registered at
P.S. Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
The petitioner filed an application UIs 340 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate praying therein that action be taken against the Investigating Officer and accused
Asha Mittal. It was alleged that investigating officer had illegally withheld the statement UIs 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Asha
Mittal.
By the impugned order learned M.M. has imposed cost of
~5000 I- upon the petitioner while disJJ?-issing the application.
Trial Court has noted that Asha Mittal was not even an accused since application of petitioner UIs 190 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of Asha Mittal, had already been dismissed.
Revision against the aforesaid order has been dismissed
2010:DHC:10250 by the Additional Sessions Judge.
That is how petitioner is before this court by way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Non-filing of statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Asha Mittal in the court, in my view, will not attract action ufs 340 Cr.P.C. against the investigating officer. Similarly, no cause of action had arisen
~· against Asha Mittal for initiating any action under Section 340
Cr.P.C. since she was not even party to the proceedings.
Basic grievance of the petitioner is against the imposition of cost by the learned M.M. Since application was devoid of merits, in my view, learned M.M. was justified in imposing cost.
In the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the courts below. Petition is dismissed.
DECEMBER 16, 2010 pkv
A.K. PATHAK, J.
II
2010:DHC:10250
JUDGMENT