Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 90 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing T.T.Antony vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 12 July, 2001

Peer Pasha vs National Investigating Agency on 5 April, 2023

16. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the respective learned counsel what is germane to be considered is whether registration of multiple FIRs against the petitioners on certain solitary incident is tenable or otherwise. It is not disputed that the fact that triggered the entire incident is a face book post or a post on social media which led to unrest or rioting. The facts are elaborately narrated hereinabove and they would not require any reiteration. It becomes necessary to notice the line of law as 18 enunciated by the Apex Court in the facts of the kind, as well as registration of multiple FIRs on a solitary incident. At the outset I deem it appropriate to notice the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Apex Court in the case of T.T. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA1 has held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Muzammil Pasha vs National Investigating Agency on 5 April, 2023

16. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the respective learned counsel what is germane to be considered is whether registration of multiple FIRs against the petitioners on certain solitary incident is tenable or otherwise. It is not disputed that the fact that triggered the entire incident is a face book post or a post on social media which led to unrest or rioting. The facts are elaborately narrated hereinabove and they would not require any reiteration. It becomes necessary to notice the line of law as 18 enunciated by the Apex Court in the facts of the kind, as well as registration of multiple FIRs on a solitary incident. At the outset I deem it appropriate to notice the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Apex Court in the case of T.T. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA1 has held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Muzammil Pasha vs National Investigating Agency on 5 April, 2023

16. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the respective learned counsel what is germane to be considered is whether registration of multiple FIRs against the petitioners on certain solitary incident is tenable or otherwise. It is not disputed that the fact that triggered the entire incident is a face book post or a post on social media which led to unrest or rioting. The facts are elaborately narrated hereinabove and they would not require any reiteration. It becomes necessary to notice the line of law as 18 enunciated by the Apex Court in the facts of the kind, as well as registration of multiple FIRs on a solitary incident. At the outset I deem it appropriate to notice the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Apex Court in the case of T.T. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA1 has held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Mr A K A Majeed vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2019

17. Insofar as, registration of second FIR in Crime No.741/2014 is concerned, it would not detain this Court for too long to accept the contention raised by petitioner No.1 appearing in person and learned counsel appearing for petitioner No2. Hon'ble Apex Court in T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in AIR 2001 SCC 2637, has held that registration of second FIR in respect of same offence or offence committed in the course of same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Chandrashekar Hiremath vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2016

12. Admittedly, both the cases pertain to the selection of 197 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor vide notification No.DPN:SSA/R.C.01/2011-12 dated 16.05.2012. One complaint pertains to selecting of candidates from other categories, another complaint relates to the interference with the answer sheets and manipulating the same in order to help few candidates for monetary consideration. Considering the contents of both the complaints filed before the trial Court and important aspects submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.1 - Lokayuktha Police has to conduct a comprehensive investigation in respect of the 13 allegations found in both the complaints and submit a report to the Special Judge who has referred the complaint to the police in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in terms of the decision in the case of T.T.ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS -
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A V Chandrashekara - Full Document

Sri K Y Nanjegowda vs The Station House Officer on 1 September, 2023

In the considered view of this Court, it is not hit by the dictum of the Apex Court either in the case of T.T. ANTONY (supra) or KRISHNA LAL 25 CHAWLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH3. Those were cases where repeated crimes were registered on one solitary incident against the very same accused. In the case at hand, the first complaint though was concerning grant of land, it was against the Tahsildar, against whom the crime is registered for offences under Section 192-A and 192-B of the Act which cannot even become offence against the Tahsildar. Therefore, it is a make believe registration of crime. This would not stand to reason on the scrutiny of original records pertaining to investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.276 of 2019. The original records would indicate only collection of documents and resumption of lands that were granted by the Committee. Even after 4 years of investigation, it was only resumption of land or collection of papers.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri K M Prasad vs State By Assistant Commissioner on 19 July, 2019

12. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner however has pointed out that in Manoj Kumar case supra, the larger Bench declined to go into the above question as it was found that in the said case, no second FIR was filed and therefore, the issue having already been set-at-rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T.Antony's case as well as in Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2013) 6 Supreme court cases 384, prayed for quashing the investigation and the charge sheet submitted by respondent No.1 pursuant to the second FIR.
Karnataka High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J M Cunha - Full Document

Shakib vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2022

In regard to the 21 question of material improvements made in a subsequent private complaint by the same complainant against the same accused with regard to the same incident, it may be useful to refer to the following excerpt from Upkar Singh [Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292: 2005 SCC (Cri) 211], which further clarifies the holding in T.T. Antony [T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048]: (Upkar Singh case [Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292: 2005 SCC (Cri) 211], SCC pp. 297-98, para 17) "17. ... In our opinion, this Court in that case only held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code."
Karnataka High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next