The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by Chand challenging a recommendation for action under Section 110 g Cr.P.C. The court held the petition was premature and not maintainable as the Sub Divisional Magistrate had not yet passed an order on the Police recommendation.
Petition dismissed as not maintainable being premature.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3900 of 2018
Petitioner :- Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Vishal Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed against the recommendation dated 14.11.2017 made by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras/respondent no. 3 against the petitioner for initiating action under Section 110 g Cr.P.C.
Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable as the Sub Divisional Magistrate has yet to pass an order on the recommendation made by the respondent no. 3 on 14.11.2017.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable being premature.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 17.7.2018 Meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the Sub Divisional Magistrate passes an order on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police.
Whether the challenge to the recommendation under Section 110 g Cr.P.C. is premature.
Chand
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
