The High Court was of the view that there was no proper inquiry made by the learned Magistrate in terms of sub- Section (1) of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C and therefore, the High Court remitted the complaint to the learned Magistrate from the stage of holding an inquiry under sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. In the order dated 18 September, 2008, the learned Magistrate has not recorded reasons for not recording the statements of other witnesses specifically cited in the complaint. As the High Court has remanded the case for holding an inquiry in terms of sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., it is obvious that the observations made in the impugned order, including the observations on requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., will have to be held as tentative observations, which will have no bearing on ultimate conclusion to be drawn by the learned Magistrate.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Case Title: DILIP KUMAR Vs. BRAJRAJ SHRIVASTAVA (2023 INSC 670)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000561-000561 / 2012
