Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 448 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Upkar Singh vs Ved Prakash & Ors on 10 September, 2004

Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 March, 2025

32. It is for the reasons that firstly, the second FIR was not filed by the same person, who had filed the first FIR. Had it been so, then the situation would have been somewhat different. Such was not the case here; Second, it was filed by the appellant as a counter-complaint against respondent No.3; Third, the first FIR was against five persons based on one set of allegations whereas the second FIR was based on the allegations different from the allegations made in the first FIR; and Lastly, the High Court while quashing the second FIR/charge-sheet did not examine the issue arising in the case in the light of law laid down by this Court in two aforementioned decisions of this Court in the cases of Upkar Singh (supra) and Surender Kaushik (supra) and simply referred three decisions of this Court mentioned above wherein this Court has laid down general principle of law relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code."
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Siddharth Sharma vs State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2025

8. As held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment on the doctrine of sameness holding that registration of multiple FIRs for the same offences is impermissible in law and practice of registering multiple FIR was deprecated as can be seen from the said judgment, I am of the considered opinion that the instant second complaint making exactly identical/similar allegations as earlier complaint which was registered as FIR in Crime No.195/2022 is contrary to the aforesaid principles warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
Karnataka High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Shakib vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2022

(emphasis supplied) If the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the afore- extracted judgments is considered qua the facts obtaining in the case at hand, what would unmistakably emerge is, the registration of multiple FIRs on the same incident would be hit 22 by the doctrine of sameness and would have to be obliterated, as it would amount to violation of fundamental rights of a citizen.
Karnataka High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Peer Pasha vs National Investigating Agency on 5 April, 2023

(x). to a counter claim by the accused in the first complaint, or on his behalf, alleging a different version of the said incident. In case there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, it would be treated as two different FIRs and investigation can be carried under both of them by the same investigating agency. (Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292; Kari Choudhary v. Most. Sita Devi : 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.)
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri Murugesh Rudrappa Nirani S/O ... vs State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2023

(emphasis supplied) If the law that is laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgments is considered, what would unmistakably emerge is, registration of second FIR on the same incident would be hit by the "doctrine of sameness" and will have to be annihilated as it would amount to improving the facts and the case in the subsequent complaint on the same incident. On the bedrock of the principles laid down in the afore-
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sunil Kumar vs State By on 7 December, 2021

(emphasis supplied) If the law that is laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgments is considered, what would unmistakably emerge is, registration 26 of second FIR on the same incident would be hit by the "doctrine of sameness" and will have to be annihilated as it would amount to improving the facts and the case in the subsequent complaint on the same incident. On the bedrock of the principles laid down in the afore-extracted judgments of the Apex Court, the case at hand will have to be considered."
Karnataka High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Shri. Rayappa Patil S/O. Ningappa Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2022

(emphasis supplied) If the law that is laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgments is considered, what would unmistakably emerge is, registration of second FIR on the same incident would be hit by the "doctrine of sameness" and will have to be annihilated as it would amount to improving the facts and the case in the subsequent complaint on the same incident. On the bedrock of the principles laid down in the afore-extracted judgments of the Apex Court, the case at hand will have to be considered.
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Muzammil Pasha vs National Investigating Agency on 5 April, 2023

(x). to a counter claim by the accused in the first complaint, or on his behalf, alleging a different version of the said incident. In case there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, it would be treated as two different FIRs and investigation can be carried under both of them by the same investigating agency. (Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292; Kari Choudhary v. Most. Sita Devi : 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.)
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri Murugesh Rudrappa Nirani vs State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2023

(emphasis supplied) If the law that is laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgments is considered, what would unmistakably emerge is, registration of second FIR on the same incident would be hit by the "doctrine of sameness" and will have to be annihilated as it would amount to improving the facts and the case in the subsequent complaint on the same incident. On the bedrock of the principles laid down in the afore-
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next