Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 4403 (2.35 seconds)
Documents citing R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960

Abasaheb Yadav Honmane And Ashwini ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2008

Section 482 Cr PC gives inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power can therefore be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. The grounds on which the prosecution initiated proceedings against an accused can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of power conferred by Section 482 CrPC has been settled by a catena of decisions of this Court rendered in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Raj Kapoor v. State.
Bombay High Court Cites 126 - Cited by 72 - S Kumar - Full Document

Nrupalbhai Narendrabhai Shah vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 December, 2024

In Golconda Linga Swamy [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] , after considering the decisions of this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and other decisions on the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482CrPC, in paras 5, 7 and 8, it is observed and held as under : (Golconda Linga Swamy case [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] , SCC pp. 526-29) "5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the Signature Not Verified enactment of the Code. It envisages three Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 769/2022 Page 17 of 28 13:04 circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely : (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if Signature Not Verified it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 769/2022 Page 18 of 28 13:04 to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors on 2 February, 1982

ces and the offender may go unpunished to the deteriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious deteriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. The decision on which Mr. Chatterjee has relied are based on this sound principle, and in all these cases, an offence had been disclosed. Relying on the well- settled and sound principle that the Court should not interfere with an investigation into an offence at the stage of investigation and should allow the investigation to be completed, this Court had made the observations in the said decisions which I have earlier quoted reiterating and reaffirming the sound principles of justice. The decisions relied on by Mr. Chatterjee, do not lay down, as it cannot possibly be laid down as a broad proposition of law, that an investigation must necessarily be permitted to continue and will not be prevented by the Court at the stage of investigation even if no offence is disclosed. While adverting to this specific question as to whether an investigation can go on even if no offence is disclosed, the judicial Committee in the case of King Emperor v. Khwaja Nizam Ahmed (supra) and this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (supra), Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration (supra), S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari (supra) have clearly laid down that no investigation can be permitted and have made the observations which I have earlier quoted and which were relied on by Mr. Sen. As I have earlier observed this proposition is not only based on sound logic but is also based on fundamental principles of justice as a person against whom no offence is disclosed, cannot be put to any harassment by the process of investigation which is likely to put his personal liberty and also property which are considered sacred and sacrosanct into peril and jeopardy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 711 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Ganga Ram Hospital vs State on 22 June, 2020

In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] this Court considered the scope of the High Court's power under Section 482 Cr PC and Article 226 of the Constitution to quash FIR registered against the respondent, referred to several judicial precedents including those of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 272] and State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha [(1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283] and held that the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task.
Delhi High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 1 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Chaulaben Bhura Kadchha(Jadeja) vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2024

8. Thus, if the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court are considered in context with the facts of the present case, in that event, in the opinion of this Court, this is a clear cut case of abuse of process of the Court. From bare perusal of the contents of the FIR in question, it is found out that the only allegation raised against the applicant is that she, along with her son, has used and utilized the car in question which was given by the complainant to her son. Admittedly, no transaction has been entered into by and between the applicant and complainant. Moreover, the applicant is the ex- wife of deceased Bhurabhai Munjabhai, whereas, the complainant is the wife of deceased Bhurabhai Munjabhai. It is also found out from the record that after the death of said Bhurabhai Munjabhai, applicant has preferred Civil Misc. Application No.39 of 2016 under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Porbandar on 26.09.2016 for getting the Page 7 of 9 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 21:06:00 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6521/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2024 undefined probate of will dated 20.12.1994 of deceased Bhurabhai Munjabhai. Learned advocate Mr. Barot has submitted that on account of institution of the aforesaid proceedings by the applicant, the complainant has registered false and fabricated FIR in question arraigning the applicant and her son as a counterblast to create pressure upon the applicant and her son. Thus, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, where the Court finds that the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, in that event, the Court should exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code by quashing the FIR/complaint. In the instant case, if the allegations made in the FIR in question are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, even though, in the opinion of this Court, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the applicant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zaki Ur Rahman Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 September, 2022

18. It has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222; Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC 686; M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. : (2001) 8 SCC 645; Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. Vs. Mohammd Shariful Haque : (2005) 1 SCC 122; M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava : (2009) 9 SCC 682; Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 59; Arun Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (2013) 2 SCC 801; Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar : (2019) 6 SCC 107; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. : (2019) 11 SCC 706; Rajeev Kourav Vs. Balasaheb & others : (2020) 3 SCC 317; Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh : (2020) 12 SCC 467, that exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinize the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle the prosecution in its inception.
Allahabad High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Shersingh vs State Of M.P. on 16 December, 1988

It distinguished the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Gopal Dass v. State 1978 Cri LJ 961 (supra) holding that the Supreme Court neither in R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab 1960 Cri LJ 1239 nor in Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu 1977 Cri LJ 997 (SC) (supra) has gone to the extent in laying down that the inherent powers cannot be exercised at all in such circumstances. The Division Bench also mentioned that it may be that the subsequent convicting Court was not apprised about the existence of the previous sentence. At any rate ordering of sentence to run concurrently does not amount to altering the finding. It may be noted that Section 31 of the Code provides for ordering the .sentences to run concurrently in a given case. Likewise, under Section 427 while awarding a sentence in a subsequent case in respect of the person who is already undergoing sentence in previous case, a discretion is given to the subsequent convicting Court to give such a direction and order the sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next