The High Court held a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition incompetent due to the existence of an alternative remedy. Upon counsel's withdrawal to approach the Magistrate, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
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-1314 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.01.2011
Jagbir Singh
.......... petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present : Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to respondents No. 2 to 3 for registration of case against respondents No. 4 to 10.
This petition is not competent in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others 2008(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 392 as the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate by filing a complaint in case the police has not registered a case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition to approach the Magistrate.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
17.01.2011 'sp'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for registration of a case is maintainable when an alternative remedy of approaching the Magistrate exists.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and othersFollowed¶13
Sakri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others 2008(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 392
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagbir Singh
State of Haryana
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
