LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

dns (mo)     26 July 2015

156(3) application filed need advice

charges framed --- u/s 498/406/dp act.

issue ---forge bills submited by the lady .jweler is sayin to sales tax that he has not sold any iteam against those bills ,moreover these are just estimates .Jweler even called me and said the same thing .However police is saying purchase taken place against those bills/estimates  .Police has presented those documents as bills.

I have moved an application u/s 156 ( 3)-----ATR recieved ,ATR says that matter is subjudice u/s 498 /406  and in the said case a jweler is a witness , so the applicant should get his grievances there only ,and it is well setteled law that when the matter is subjudice no action can be taken place .


i want to know that what should be our basis to differentiate two crimes .so that magisrate consider this 156 application.  and dont dismiss it saying that get your grievance registered in 498/06 case.



 2 Replies

adv.raghavan (Advocate,9444674980)     26 July 2015

You have not mentioned when 156(3) crpc was filed, before cognizance of offence by Magistrate or after, it can be only before, in that case the magistrate can insist for further investigation on the same to bring out truth. If it  is filed after congizance of offence by the magistrate and if he had ordered for it (156 (3) ) then it is not valid and will not stand the test of law., as you version is inconclusive. Since the charges are already framed it would be a good option to bring out the truth during cross of that particular witness.

1 Like

dns (mo)     04 August 2015

156 (3) application was filed after chargesheet was submitted ,now charges have been framed .156( 3) is running under a separate  MM in the same court .

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register