Dismissed

Mangi Lal and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2012CRLMP/2040/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order affirming cognizance under Sections 384, 385, and 504 of the IPC. Relying on Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi, the court held that further investigation without court permission does not invalidate the order, and the petition failed to establish grounds for interference.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition and the stay petition were dismissed.

Mangi Lal and Ors. Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2040/2011

¶3

Mangilal & Ors. Vs. State of Raj.

¶4

Date of Order :: 1.2.12.

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶6

Mr.SN Vyas, for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr.Anil Joshi, PP. for the respondent State.

¶8

The present misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 11.4.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Revision No.58/2011 whereby she has affirmed the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 384, 385 and 504 I.P.C.

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case, cognizance was taken against the petitioners on the basis of the further investigation conducted by the police without the permission of the Court. Thus, he submits that the order impugned suffers from patent illegality and deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi. vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2004 AIR SCW 2063 .

¶10

Per contra, learned PP has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have carefully perused the order impugned as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above.

¶13

In the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the police has powers to conduct further investigation even dehors any direction from the Court. As such, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation even if the court took cognizance on the strength of the police report earlier submitted. Ofcourse, the police should ordinarily inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation but it is not a rule of law that further investigation can only be conducted with the permission of the Court. In the present case, the police after further investigation has already filed charge-sheet against the petitioners. The present petition does not show any cause for interference in the orders impugned.

¶14

Resultantly, the present misc. petition, being bereft of any force, is hereby dismissed.

¶15

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

¶16

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

¶17

S.Phophaliya

Mangi Lal and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangi Lal and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Dan Vs State and Ors.

Amandeep Singh and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Paramjeet Kaur @ Arshdeep Kaur and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Ishwar Lal Vs State and Anr.

Kuldeepak Bothra Vs State

Mani Ram and Ors. Vs State and Anr.