Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1110 (4.22 seconds)
Documents citing Vadilal Panchal vs Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker And ... on 6 May, 1960

Tej Kishan Sadhu vs State & Anr. on 2 May, 2013

stricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allega- tions made in the complaint in order to determine whether proc- ess should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for pro- ceeding on the basis of the Statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not par- take the character of a full dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said ac- cused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is ade- quate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Sec- tion 202 of the Code. To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry. Vide Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker and Anr. MANU/SC/0059/1960 : [1961]1SCR1 and Pramatha Nath Ta- lukdar v. Saroj Ranjan [1962] 2 SCC 297."
Delhi High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 5 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs Saroj Ranjan Sarkar on 21 December, 1961

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure the subject of "Complaints to Magistrates" is dealt with in Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisions relevant for the purpose of this case are ss.200, 202 and 203. Section 200 deals with examination of complainants and ss. 202, 203 and 204 with the powers of the Magistrate in regard to the dismissal of complaint or the issuing of process. The scope and extent of ss. 202 and 203 were laid down in Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Chadigaonker(1). The scope of enquiry under s. 202 is limited to finding out the truth or otherwise of the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not and s. 203 lays down what materials are to be considered for the purpose. Under s. 103 Criminal Procedure Code the judgment which Magistrate has to form must be based on the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry if any. He must apply his mind to materials and from his judgment whether or 354 not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Therefore if he has not misdirected himself as to the scope of the enquiry made under s. 202, Criminal Procedure Code, and has judicially applied him mind to the material before him and then proceeds to make his order it cannot be said that he has acted erroneously. An order of dismissal under s. 203, Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e.g, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings have been adduced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 269 - S K Das - Full Document

N.R. Pachouri vs Kishanlal Choudhary on 22 February, 2024

The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry. Vide Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker and Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Kishanlal Choudhary vs N.R. Pachori on 22 February, 2024

The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry. Vide Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker and Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Sau. Sangita W/O Ashok Borawar vs Sou. Surekha W/O Nandu Borawar on 3 August, 2010

"The scope of enquiry under S. 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should be issued or not under S. 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to S. 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:14:09 ::: 21 any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under S. 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjuding the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under S. 202 of the Code. To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under S. 202 of the Code, the Enquiry Officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry. Vide Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar, (1961) 1 SCR 1 : (AIR 1960 SC 1113) and Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan, 1962 Supp (2) SCR ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:14:09 ::: 22 297 : (AIR 1962 SC 876)."
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R M Borde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next