Petitioner applied for non-registration of an F.I.R. The bench referred to Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. to direct the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the appropriate forum. The CRL.M.P. was disposed of without reconsidering the plea.
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.
CRLMP No. 741 of 2020
This matter is taken up through video conferencing. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties, and perused the record.
The petitioner has filed this application against nonregistration of F.I.R. pursuant to complaint lodged in Annexure-2 series.
Considering the submissions made, the petitioner is permitted to pursue the remedy before the appropriate forum in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari V. State of U.P ., A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 187.
With the above direction, the CRLMP stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
….………….……………….
(DR. B.R. SARANGI, J)
Ajaya
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's remedy lies via non-registration of F.I.R or before the appropriate forum.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari v. State of U.PExplained¶5
Lalita Kumari V. State of U.P, A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 187 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State
B. R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
