AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 163 wordsHon''ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—It is argued on behalf of the applicant that investigation in the mater has been done by Head Constable
which is not permissible under the law and no permission has been taken by the concerned Magistrate regarding the investigation after registration
of the case. It is also argued that there is no injury on the person of the injured, therefore offence u/s 308 I.P.C., is not attracted. Inspite of time
being granted to learned A.G.A. as well as Sri R.P. Lal, learned counsel for the private opposite party no counter affidavit has been filed till date.
Accordingly, list in the next cause list, by which time, learned A.G.A. may file detail counter affidavit and also learned A.G.A. may obtain
specific instruction with regard to the fact that whether there is any injury on the person of the injured to attract Section 308 I.P.C. Interim order, if
any, granted earlier shall remain operative, till the next date of listing.