Writ petition seeking directions for FIR registration on a complaint; dismissed in default as petitioners were absent, with note that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C application before the Magistrate is the efficacious remedy.
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.
$~13
POONAM & ORS.
.....Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR.
.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Ld. ASC for State with SI Vikash, P.S. Najafgarh.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R
% 09.08.2024
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
AUGUST 9, 2024/va
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2024 at 11:43:49
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct registration of an FIR on the petitioner's complaint when Section 156(3) Cr.P.C remedy exists.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Poonam & Ors.
State of NCT Delhi
Anr.
Neena Bansal Krishna
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
