Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 459 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing Bhagwant Singh vs Commissioner Of Police, Delhi on 6 May, 1983

V.Senthil Balaji vs State Rep.By on 31 October, 2022

54.The learned Senior Counsel further contended that all the persons involved in the cash-for-job scam are not named, particularly, the FIR named accused persons namely, Mr.Baskar and Mr.Kesavan were dropped Page 66 of 86 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.224 of 2021, Crl.O.P.Nos.13914, 15122 & 6621 of 2021 by the investigating officer without notice to the complainant Mr.Devasagayam, which is in violation of law declared by the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Sing Vs. Commissioner of Police AIR 1985 SC 1285, the Supreme Court decision in Union Public Service Commission Vs. Papaiah AIR 1997 SC 3876 and also against the principle stated by our High Court in C.Ve.Shanmugam S/o.Venugopal Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2010 2 MLJ criminal page 833.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - V Sivagnanam - Full Document

Soumendra Kumar Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 February, 2025

27. Due to some inadvertent mistakes, the names of the learned advocates were incorporated in place of accused persons. Subsequently, the said application was replaced by the de-facto complainant before the Learned CMM at Calcutta after replacing the earlier application after due correction and same was kept in the record. The said application is still pending for final adjudication. However, petitioner comes before this Court at a premature stage. Therefore, there is no need to keep these Criminal Revisional applications pending because it would not sub-serve the purpose because when there is a provision to give an opportunity of hearing to the de-facto complainant, if culmination of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Closure Report in view of the judgment passed in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurumoorthi vs Mohanasundaram Rajamany on 2 August, 2022

5.2.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.N.Bhagwant Singh vs Commissioner of Police2, considered the provisions under Section 157(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring the Investigating Officer to forthwith notify the informant about his refusal to investigate, and Section 173 (2)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, mandating to communicate in such a manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the informant. It is held that it is the first informant who is 2 AIR 1985 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Supreme Court 1285 20/43 Crl.R.C.No.927 of 2021 vitally interested in the result of the investigation and if the learned Magistrate decides to agree with the negative report, the notice to the first informant is mandatory. The same is for the purpose of providing an opportunity for the first informant to have been heard and make his submissions when the report is considered by the learned Magistrate to decide of what action he should take on the report. It is in this context, even though it is not expressly provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant is permitted to file a the protest petition.
Madras High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document

Soumendra Kumar Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 February, 2025

27. Due to some inadvertent mistakes, the names of the learned advocates were incorporated in place of accused persons. Subsequently, the said application was replaced by the de-facto complainant before the Learned CMM at Calcutta after replacing the earlier application after due correction and same was kept in the record. The said application is still pending for final adjudication. However, petitioner comes before this Court at a premature stage. Therefore, there is no need to keep these Criminal Revisional applications pending because it would not sub-serve the purpose because when there is a provision to give an opportunity of hearing to the de-facto complainant, if culmination of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Closure Report in view of the judgment passed in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satya Pal And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 17 September, 1999

22. The reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lt. Col. Prithipal Singh Bedi v. Union of India (supra), is also of no help to the petitioners as it does not deal with the point in issue, rather in the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that where upon consideration of the police report under Section 173 of the Code the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the offence he must give an opportunity of hearing to the informant while considering the report. Similarly, the other judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are also not relevant for deciding the questions referred.
Allahabad High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S R Alam - Full Document

Soumendra Kumar Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 February, 2025

27. Due to some inadvertent mistakes, the names of the learned advocates were incorporated in place of accused persons. Subsequently, the said application was replaced by the de-facto complainant before the Learned CMM at Calcutta after replacing the earlier application after due correction and same was kept in the record. The said application is still pending for final adjudication. However, petitioner comes before this Court at a premature stage. Therefore, there is no need to keep these Criminal Revisional applications pending because it would not sub-serve the purpose because when there is a provision to give an opportunity of hearing to the de-facto complainant, if culmination of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Closure Report in view of the judgment passed in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sc No. 29/06 & 73/07 State vs . Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 1 Of 92 on 15 November, 2010

5. Though the charge of dowry death under Section 304­B IPC was not framed as mentioned in the judgment dated 09.11.2010, the offences which have been proved collectively present all the necessary ingredients of such offence. It has been brought home that on account of the intentional acts of commission of the three convicts, Chanda Kumari, a daughter­in­law of their family, was forced by their pestering arising out of their sheer greed for dowry and sadism (drawing some satisfaction by humiliating her including by baselessly casting aspersions against her chastity) into such circumstances as to be compelled to take her own life prematurely. It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, (AIR 1983 SC 826) that such cases indicate a deep seated malady in our social order and call for severest condemnation.
Delhi District Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kalyan Kumar Das vs The State Of West Bengal on 13 July, 1998

48. The question of giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the first informant at that stage also does not arise in a case where the Magistrate is exercising his Jurisdiction under section 167(5). It is true that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, , Union Public Service Commissioner v. S. Papaloh, JT 1997 (8) SC 24. RupanDeolBazazv. KPSGIU, 1996 Cr.LJ 381 the Magistrate is required to give notice and hearing to the first informant where he decides not to proceed against an accused, but it has also to be noticed from a reading of those decisions that the question of giving notice and hearing to the first informant only arises when the Magistrate on receipt of police report under section 173(2) considers the question of taking cognizance thereon and decides to drop the proceeding as a whole or against some persons mentioned in the first information report. Those decisions of the Supreme Court have no application to a situation where no police report or charge-sheet has yet been submitted, in all those cases the Supreme Court was considering the question whether on receipt of police report the first informant should be given notice and hearing if the Magistrate decides not to proceed against the accused.
Calcutta High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 6 - B Panigrahi - Full Document

Soumendra Kumar Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 February, 2025

27. Due to some inadvertent mistakes, the names of the learned advocates were incorporated in place of accused persons. Subsequently, the said application was replaced by the de-facto complainant before the Learned CMM at Calcutta after replacing the earlier application after due correction and same was kept in the record. The said application is still pending for final adjudication. However, petitioner comes before this Court at a premature stage. Therefore, there is no need to keep these Criminal Revisional applications pending because it would not sub-serve the purpose because when there is a provision to give an opportunity of hearing to the de-facto complainant, if culmination of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Closure Report in view of the judgment passed in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.S.Rawat vs . State on 30 August, 2014

3. Against the impugned order, present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist stating that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order contravening the law laid down in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police (supra.). He has submitted in the judgment, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that law requires, the copies must have been supplied to the complainant so as to enable to know about the outcome. Here, the Ld. Magistrate has not supplied the copy of the final CR No. 31/14 G.S.Rawat Vs. State Page No. 3 report alongwith the documents annexed thereto which is in violation of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and is liable to be set aside.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next