Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr on 16 January, 2015

Dr. Y Bhaskar Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2016

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke reported in (2015)3 SCC 123 has held that cognizance is a process taking judicial notice of an offence so as to initiate proceeding in respect of the alleged violation of Law. It is further held that at the stage of taking cognizance of a case what is to be seen 79 is whether there is sufficient grounds for taking judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiate further proceedings. On perusal of the material produced before the court goes to show that the other accused have used the office of Karnataka Lokayukta and the official residence to commit the offence.
Karnataka High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 1 - A Byrareddy - Full Document

Mr. Sushil Kumar Churiwala vs Mr. Akshay Bansal on 10 December, 2024

13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied on by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19] . This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in para 14: (SCC p. 135) "14. ... Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
Karnataka High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - V Srishananda - Full Document

M/S K.N.S.Overseas Pvt Ltd vs The State on 19 November, 2020

4. Secondly, it is contended that the order taking cognizance of the alleged offences is also defective. It does not disclose application of mind by the learned Special Judge. It is a bald order, which does not specify the offences for which the alleged cognizance has been taken. On this point, learned counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL Vs. CBI reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609; the Constitution Bench decision in the case of SARAH MATHEW Vs. INSTITUTE OF CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASES reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62; the decision in the case of SANJAYSINH RAMRAO CHAVAN Vs. 6 DATTATRAY GULABRAO PHALKE & OTHERS reported in (2015) 3 SCC 123 and the decision in the case of MEHMOOD UL REHMAN Vs. KHAZIR MOHAMMAD TUNDA & OTHERS reported in (2015) 12 SCC 420. It is contended that the order taking cognizance being illegal, the subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - J M Cunha - Full Document
1   2 Next