The applicant challenged orders treating his Section 156(3) application as a complaint and rejecting his criminal revision. The court held recovery wasn't required as the applicant knew the truck's location and accused's details, dismissing the petition.
Petition dismissed as no case for interference was made out.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61678
Court No. - 11
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7971 of 2024
Applicant :- Purushottam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State-2002 Crl. L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi) and Gulab Chand Upadhyaya vs. State of U.P. and others - 2002 Crl.L.J. 2907 has held that where the complainant is in possession of the complete details of all the accused and witnesses who have to be examined and neither recovery is needed nor any such material is required then normally no investigation is required and consequently the procedure of complaint case should be adopted.
Order Date :- 6.9.2024
A. Katiyar
Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking recovery of a truck should be treated as a complaint case.
Whether the trial court's observation that the applicant is aware of the accused and the truck's location negates the need for investigation.
Purushottam
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue
Abdul Moin
Amit Katiyar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
