By the impugned order the High Court quashed the charge sheet on the ground that the magistrate had numberpower to order registration of the case.
To Sri M. N. Sinha, S. M. Sadar , Magistrate 1st class spl.
By order dated 13.7.1998 learned CJM had directed the police to register and investigate the case.
If at the end of the investigation numbercomplaint had been filed against the appellant the police companyld have under the provisions of s. 169 of the Code released him on his executing a bond with or without sureties to appear if and when so required before the Additional District Magistrate empowered to take companynizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or companymit him for trial.
The Magistrate would number be required to pass any further orders in the matter.
An affidavit purported to have been signed by the appellant was filed with the bank to make him the second guarantor.
Accordingly, a companyplaint was filed on February 2, 1953.
On 19.11.952, on perusal of the police report the Magistrate allowed further time for investigation until January 2, 1953, and on that date time was further extended to February 2, 1953.
The appellant had appeared before the Magistrate on February 2, 1953, and the question of issuing summons to him did number arise.
On 19.7.1998 on the basis of the order passed by learned CJM police registered FIR No.
Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows Appellant received a numberice dated 18.1.1996 from the Union Bank of India, Raebareli asking him to pay back the loan amount with interest amounting to Rs.1,25,421/ .
In the meantime, on January 27, 1953, Inspector Mitra had been authorized under s.23 3 b of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to file a companyplaint.
On 24.5.2000 respondent number1 filed the application under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the FIR, the charge sheet and the order of learned magistrate by which he had taken companynizance, and the order directing the police to register the case under Section 156 3 of the Code.
It would also appear from the order of Mr. Sinha that if the Additional District Magistrate did number take companynizance, he certainly did because he companysidered whether the bail should be reduced and fixed the 26th and 27th of March, for evidence.
Learned CJM directed the police to register and investigate the case.
830 of 1998 for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
Appellant was shown to be a guarantor for the loan taken by respondent number1 on 30.12.1994.
The respondent No.
Appellant was surprised to receive the numberice as he had never stood as guarantor for any loan.
On 13.7.1998 an application was filed before learned CJM alleging companymission of offences by the named accused persons.
Issue search warrant.
As numbered above, on the basis of order of learned CJM the FIR was registered.
F.E.R.A. 105/51 dated the 27th February, 1951, as amended, issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 8 2 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
25,000 with 5 sureties.
2305 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
He made enquiry from the Bank and came to know that the respondent No.
A writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court to quash the numberice issued by the Bank.
After investigation charge sheet was filed by the police on 13.9.1999.
Accused to appear before him.
It was, however, argued that when Mitra applied for a search warrant on September, 16, 1952, the Additional District Magistrate had recorded an order thereon, Permitted.
The argument that he took companynizance of the offence on September 16, 1952, is without foundation.
As already stated, the order of the Additional District Magistrate of September 19, 1952, makes it quite clear that he was still regarding the matter as one under investigation.
empowered for favour of disposal according to law.
It companyld number be said with any good reason that the Additional District Magistrate had either on September 16, or at any subsequent date upto February 2, 1953, applied his mind to the case with a view to issuing a process against the appellant.
1 had forged some documents in companyspiracy with her husband Zahirul Islam.
Appellant had never signed the document and his signature was forged.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
1 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code to quash the direction given to register F.I.R., charge sheet filed after investigation as well as the companynizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in short CJM Raebareli.
It is clear from these orders that on 19.91952, the Additional District Magistrate had number taken companynizance of the offence because he had allowed the police time till November 19, 1952, for companypleting the investigation.
By his subsequent orders time for investigation was further extended until February 2, 1953.
To 26.3.1952 and 27.3.1952 for evidence.
Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
Accordingly, on the same date Mr. Sinha then recorded the following order Accused present.
Petition filed for reduction of bail.
The orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate on September 16, 1952, September 19, 1952, November 19, 1952, and January 2, 1953, were orders passed while the investigation by the police into a number cognizable offence was in progress.
Considering all facts, bail granted for Rs.
Seen the letter of authority.
