Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Durga Charan Nayak vs State Of Orissa And Others .... Opposite ... on 6 April, 2022

3.Title State vs . Kishan @ Lala on 5 August, 2022

18. Hon'ble Apex Court in a three judge bench case, titled as Durga Charan Naik Vs. State of Orissa 1966 AIR 1775 observed as under :­ "It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under section 353 IPC is based are the same as those constituting the charge under section 186 IPC but it cannot be ignored that section 186 and 353 IPC relate to two distinct offences and while the offences under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186 IPC is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in discharge of his public functions but under section 353 IPC, the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 IPC occurs in chapter X of IPC dealing with contempt of lawful authority of public servants, while section 353 IPC occurs in chapter XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body. It is well established that section 195 Cr.P.C. does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section."
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jawahar Lal Vats And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 October, 2024

The third case relied upon by applicants is AIR 1966 SC 1775 Durga Charan Nayak case. This case relates to offences covered under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. The dictum of this judgment is that Section 195 Cr.P.C does not bar trial of accused for a distinct offence, infact this ruling helps us for alternative submission that the criminal proceedings are by no stretch of imagination, bad in law, for offences under Section 389, 120-B IPC, as they are distinct offences not covered under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document

Kapil Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 10 March, 2026

It is submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in the present case due to some political reasons. Learned counsels for the petitioners have further contended that the incident is of August, 2012, however, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared on 29.12.2018 i.e. after a period of more than 06 years. It is submitted that the present FIR was registered under Sections 353 and 186 IPC against the petitioners in violation of Section 195 Cr.P.C. as the complaint was required to be filed for the offence as mentioned above by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he was administratively subordinate, but in the present case no such complaint has been filed by the complainant. They have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Durga Charan Naik and others vs. State of Orissa, (1966) AIR (SC), 1775'; and judgment of this 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 02:18:11 ::: CRM-M-14845-2019 CRM-M-21017-2022 CRM-M-37360-2021 -3- Court passed in 'Sawaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1994(3) RCR Criminal, 351' and 'Nirbhai Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009(4) RCR Criminal, 614'. He, thus, submits that in these circumstances, prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R Bhardwaj - Full Document
1