9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings against the petitioner in relation to Fir No. 40 of 1986 of Police Station Anand Parbat, New Delhi. (2) The circumstances in which the prosecution against the petitioner arose are that the petitioner owns a factory-M/s Capital Machine India at New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, One Ram Kewal, complainant worked in that factory. The complainant went to the seat of another worker who was ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m conceded that the offence actually was covered by Section 287 IPC. (4) I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and have given my careful consideration to all the circumstances involved in this petition. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the offence under Section 287 Ipc was actually non-cognizable and Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndian Penal Code was investigated by the police and the challan was filed. This Court quashed the proceedings in that case also holding that the offence could not have been investigated without the orders of a Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Although the facts of the present case are little different from the facts of the cases cited above, yet the argument of the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was made out under Section 287 Indian Penal Code and not under Section 338 IPC. (5) I am, Therefore, of the view that since the offence was non-cognizable wherein the permission of the Magistrate for investigation under Section 155(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure was not obtained the continuation of the criminal proceedings before the learned Magistrate would amount to an abuse of the proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
