Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 514 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Popular Muthiah vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 4 July, 2006

Dr. Manoj Kumar vs State Nct Of Delhi on 29 November, 2024

Similarly, it has been submitted that in Popular Muthiah vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police [(2006) 7 SCC 296, H.S. Bains vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 1981 SCC (Cri) 93 and Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police [(1985) 2 SCC 537] it was opined that the Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence even if the police filed the closure/cancelation report.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Abasaheb Yadav Honmane And Ashwini ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2008

Still, while recapitulating the enunciated principles in the judgments of the Courts, particularly the Supreme Court in the cases of (i) State of Haryana v. BhajanLal , (ii) Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. , (iii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar , (iv) Popular Muthiah v. State represented by Inspector of Police , (v) Sanapareddy Maheedhar v. State of A.P. 2008 AIR SCW 11, and (vi) Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2008 decided on 21st February, 2008) , and other well accepted canons of criminal jurisprudence, we state the principles as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 126 - Cited by 72 - S Kumar - Full Document

Dr. A.K. Singh vs State & Anr. on 29 November, 2024

Similarly, it has been submitted that in Popular Muthiah vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police [(2006) 7 SCC 296, H.S. Bains vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 1981 SCC (Cri) 93 and Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police [(1985) 2 SCC 537] it was opined that the Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence even if the police filed the closure/cancelation report.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Lalit Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar Through The District ... on 22 March, 2023

27. Again, so far as the case of Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the use of extra ordinary powers conferred upon the High Court under this section are however Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45566 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 16/17 required to be reserved, as far as possible for extra ordinary cases.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R Roy - Full Document

Jay vs Krupaliben on 25 July, 2008

In Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in 2006(3) SCC (Cri) 245, the Apex Court considered the inherent powers under Sections 482 and 483 of Cr.P.C. and held that the Hon'ble High Court acts ex? debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice. Apart from inherent jurisdiction, the Hon'ble High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction in some cases under Section 483 of Cr.P.C. and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - H B Antani - Full Document

Deepak Chaudhary vs State & Anr on 29 November, 2024

Similarly, it has been submitted that in Popular Muthiah vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police [(2006) 7 SCC 296, H.S. Bains vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 1981 SCC (Cri) 93 and Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police [(1985) 2 SCC 537] it was opined that the Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence even if the police filed the closure/cancelation report.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

M.Latha vs The State on 12 July, 2011

10. The judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in Popular Muthiah .vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police(Supra) also has no application, as the exercise of power under Section 482 can be exercised on the material placed before the trial court. The trial court can invoke section 319 of the Cr.P.C to add any accused who is suspected to be guilty of crime, but has not been charge- sheeted by the police, in case any evidence comes on record.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

Afzal Imam vs State Of Bihar &Amp Anr on 11 February, 2015

In the case of Popular Muthiah v. State represented by 5 Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, this Court while dealing with the relevant provision, including Section 386 of Cr.P.C. held that the suo moto power under Section 386 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only after applying its mind to the material on record so as to be satisfied about the existence of a strong prima facie case against such persons and also whether any useful purpose is served by issuing such directions, particularly after a long lapse of time.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next