Case title – Kishanvihari Sharma @ Satya Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has mentioned the help of the Bar and has welcomed every individual from the Bar to address the Court on the issue of whether the cure under Section 156(3) CrPC can be utilized by blamed for the situation for inappropriate/deferred examination.
The Court’s Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anand Pathak has guided the Principal Registrar to post the request on the Bar Association’s notification board and convey it to the Bar Association’s Office-carriers so the matter can be appropriately arbitrated when the actual hearing resumes.
It ought to be noticed that if an individual has a complaint that their FIR has not been enlisted by the police headquarters, the primary strategy is to contact the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC or another cop recorded in Section 36 CrPC.
On the off chance that his complaint perseveres subsequent to reaching the Superintendent of Police or the official referenced in Section 36, he may document an objection with a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On the off chance that an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is by all appearances fulfilled, he can arrange the FIR to be enrolled, or in the event that it has effectively been enlisted, he can arrange an appropriate examination, which may incorporate, at his attentiveness, suggesting a difference in exploring official. [Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors – (2016) 6 SCC 277].
For more updates join us on WhatsApp.