Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15404 (3.10 seconds)
Documents citing Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013

Sri N Satish Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2026

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is clear violation of guidelines issued in Lalita Kumari's case and Charan Singh's case and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case, the prosecution launched by the respondent is abuse of process of law. It is not a fit case for investigating the matter and FIR is liable to be quashed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Deena Nath Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 11 May, 2026

32. ? The scope and ambit of a preliminary inquiry being necessary before lodging an FIR would depend upon the facts of each case. There is no set format or manner in which a preliminary inquiry is to be conducted. The objective of the same is only to ensure that a criminal investigation process is not initiated on a frivolous and untenable complaint. That is the test laid down inLalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] .
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A Moin - Full Document

Mr.Ma.Subramanian vs The State Represented By on 28 March, 2025

1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and considering the observations by this Court inLalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held and/or conducted after following the procedure as per Maharashtra State Anti-Corruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or the police officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction and/or authority and/or power at all to conduct such an enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage.”(emphasis supplied
Madras High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Shri Tanweer Seraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 July, 2024

Despite the proposition of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions that at the stage of lodging the first information report, the police officer need not be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed, considering the observations made by this Court in P. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and considering the observations by this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held and/or conducted after following the procedure as per Maharashtra State AntiCorruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or the police officer, Anti-Corruption 29 W.P. No.14464/2023 Bureau has no jurisdiction and/or authority and/or power at all to conduct such an enquiry at pre-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Ravindra Sakhwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2024

made by this Court in P. Sirajuddin (P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595: 1970 SCC (Cri) 240) and considering the observations by this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1: (2014) 1 SCC (Crl) 524] before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held and/or conducted after procedure following as Maharashtra AntiCorruption Prohibition the per State & Intelligence Bureau Manual, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or the police officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction and/or authority and/or power at all to conduct such an enquiry at pre- registration of FIR stage.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Sri. L. Sathish Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 22 May, 2023

Despite the proposition of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions that at the stage of lodging the first information report, the police officer need not be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed, considering the observations made by this Court in P. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and considering the observations by this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held and/or conducted after following the procedure as per Maharashtra State Anti-
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

Omprakash Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2024

Despite the proposition of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions that at the stage of lodging the first information report, the police officer need not be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed, considering the observations made by this Court in P. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and considering the observations by this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held and/or conducted after following the procedure as per Maharashtra State Anti Corruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or the police officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction and/or authority 20 M.Cr.C No.13457/2024 and/or power at all to conduct such an enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

K. Athinarayanan vs The State Rep By The Additional on 27 October, 2025

Hence, the proposition that a preliminary inquiry is mandatory is plainly contrary to law, for it is not only contrary to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] but would also tear apart the framework created by the CBI Manual.”” 29.4. Having thus considered the earlier decisions on the issue, it was authoritatively held as below:
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. ... on 8 October, 2021

In case a cognizable offence is made out, the FIR has to be outrightly registered, and no preliminary inquiry has to be made as held in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] by a Constitution Bench. There is no such provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for preliminary inquiry or under the SC/ST Act, as such direction is impermissible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 43 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next