NARMADA PRASAD SONKAR ALIAS RAMU v. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH CHABARA
2006-03-27
ALTAMAS KABIR, B.P.SINGH
body2006
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the caveator. 2. Special leave is granted. 3. Having perused the material placed before us, we are satisfied that no objection can be taken to the order of the High Court quashing the order dated 30-7-2005, Annexure 1 to the petition, but there is no justification for quashing the criminal complaint itself. If the Magistrate had not followed the procedure and failed to apply his mind as required by law, the order issuing process could be quashed, but the Magistrate should be directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh order in accordance with law. 4. In our view, the High Court should not have quashed the complaint itself. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court to the extent it quashed the complaint itself and direct the Magistrate to hear the parties afresh and proceed in accordance with law. 5. This appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent stated above.