Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 103 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Munshiram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2018

Aseem Kapoor vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 May, 2018

No. 1968 of 1988 decided on 15.11.1989, Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., Chirag M. Pathak and Ors. Vs. Dollyben Kantilal and Ors. and Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. wherein it has been categorically made clear that proceedings against accused persons in initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of averments in the complaint or police report CRL.M.C 2208/2015, 2209/ 2015 & 3480/2015 Page 118 of 142 under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no offence is constituted and the test is taking the allegations made on the face value without adding or subtracting or anything if no offence is made out only then the High Court would be justifying in quashing the proceedings under 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Delhi High Court Cites 118 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Smt. Neha Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2018

In case of Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2018) 5 SCC 678 the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be cautiously utilized while quashing FIR and further expressed that if inquiry was pending and there were aspect which may require investigation, the High Court erred in quashing FIR at the threshold itself without allowing investigation to proceed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaspal Singh Randhawa vs State Of Punjab on 11 July, 2019

"13. In light of the fact that the enquiry was pending and there are aspects which may require investigation, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court erred in quashing the First Information Report at the threshold itself without allowing the investigation to proceed. We cannot agree with the reasons provided under the impugned judgment concerning certain factual assertions made by the respondents as to the condition of the deceased and reasons for committing suicide because acceptance of the said would not be in consonance with the settled jurisprudence under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 as laid down by various judgments of this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Dhawan - Full Document

Kislay Panday vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 February, 2020

Even at the stage when the present petition was filed, non-bailable warrants were issued against the 15 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 29-02-2020 01:41:01 ::: CRM-M No.5882 of 2020 (O&M) 16 petitioner. The anticipatory bail of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 30.07.2019 and thereafter, the petitioner traveled abroad and never returned back, therefore, in view of the judgment Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel's case (supra) and Munshiram's case (supra), this petition is not maintainable.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - A S Sangwan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next