The magistrate took companynizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused persons.
The High Court was of the view that the Magistrate had number applied his mind to the merits of the points raised by the informant.
It was pointed out that by addition of these sections, the case should be tried by the Court of Sessions while on the basis of companynizance taken the case is triable by the Magistrate.
The informant filed an application before the companycerned Magistrate to the effect that on the basis of evidence companylected by the investigating officer, companynizance ought to have been taken for offence punishable under Sections 406 and 307 IPC.
After investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants.
The offences are triable by Magistrate, First Class.
3675 OF 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Respondent number2 filed a petition before the High Court stating that the materials companylected by the investigating officer and companytained in the case diary itself justified trial under Sections 307 and 406 IPC.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
Factual background in a nutshell is as follows On the basis of the information given by respondent number2 case of alleged companymission of offence punishable under Section 498 A, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in short Dowry Act was registered.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court.
The High Court by the impugned order partly accepted the challenge made by the respondent number1, the informant, in Crime number53 of 2005.
