The Court held that upon the guidelines in Sakiri Vasu, the petitioner's appropriate remedy is to file a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Petition disposed of; directions to file complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC.
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.
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-1006 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.1.2011
Harpreet Singh
.......... petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present : Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.
RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL)
In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others 2008(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 392 the appropriate remedy with the petitioner is to file a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate for registering a FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) has laid down broad guidelines on the issue.
Petition is disposed off.
13.1.2011 'sp'
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's appropriate remedy is filing a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of in light of the Sakiri Vasu guidelines.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶12
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others 2008(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 392
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harpreet Singh
State of Punjab
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
