Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 149 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Jehan Singh vs Delhi Administration on 27 March, 1974

State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors on 2 February, 1982

ces and the offender may go unpunished to the deteriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious deteriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. The decision on which Mr. Chatterjee has relied are based on this sound principle, and in all these cases, an offence had been disclosed. Relying on the well- settled and sound principle that the Court should not interfere with an investigation into an offence at the stage of investigation and should allow the investigation to be completed, this Court had made the observations in the said decisions which I have earlier quoted reiterating and reaffirming the sound principles of justice. The decisions relied on by Mr. Chatterjee, do not lay down, as it cannot possibly be laid down as a broad proposition of law, that an investigation must necessarily be permitted to continue and will not be prevented by the Court at the stage of investigation even if no offence is disclosed. While adverting to this specific question as to whether an investigation can go on even if no offence is disclosed, the judicial Committee in the case of King Emperor v. Khwaja Nizam Ahmed (supra) and this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (supra), Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration (supra), S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari (supra) have clearly laid down that no investigation can be permitted and have made the observations which I have earlier quoted and which were relied on by Mr. Sen. As I have earlier observed this proposition is not only based on sound logic but is also based on fundamental principles of justice as a person against whom no offence is disclosed, cannot be put to any harassment by the process of investigation which is likely to put his personal liberty and also property which are considered sacred and sacrosanct into peril and jeopardy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 711 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Rajeev Alias Raji And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 January, 2021

[Jehan Singh v. Delhi Admn., (1974) 4 SCC 522 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 558 : AIR 1974 SC 1146] , Amar Nath v. State of Haryana [Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 585] , Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana [Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] , State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 272 : AIR 1980 SC 326] , State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha [State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283 : AIR 1982 SC 949] , Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 507 : AIR 1976 SC 1947] , Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan [State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 27 : AIR 1989 SC 1] and some other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Maheshwari Oil Mills vs The State Of Bihar on 19 July, 1977

Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises, it is a matter of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person." and held These observations, though they do not expressly speak of quashing an investigation, do impliedly support the contention of Mr. Agarwal that where the allegations in the first information report do not disclose an offence, the investigation can be quashed by this Court". It will, however, appear that m the case of Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration (supra) the very same observations of the Supreme Court in Kapur's case were relied upon by the counsel in support of the proposition that the Court could interfere with the police investigation but Sarkaria, J. who delivered the judgment of the Court, after noticing the aforesaid observation in Kapur's case, upheld the objection to the maintainability of the application. Their Lordships further observed as follows:
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anita Rani And Ors. vs State Of J&K; And Ors. on 3 November, 2018

(15) In Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration (1974) 4 SCC 522 the application filed by the accused under Section 561-A of the old CRMC No.360/2016 Page 4 of 6 Code for quashing the investigation was dismissed as being premature and incompetent on the finding that prima facie, the allegations in the FIR, if assumed to be correct, constitute a cognizable offence.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S K Gupta - Full Document

Sheetal Bhat And Ors. vs Winner Raina And Anr. on 16 November, 2018

In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad[7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration[8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi[13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre[14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated:-
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S K Gupta - Full Document

Razia Begum And Ors. vs State And Ors. on 22 November, 2018

In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad [7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration [8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha [11], State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha [12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan [15] and some other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and CRMC No.158/2015 Page 5 of 10 sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated:-
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S K Gupta - Full Document

Mohd. Ashraf And Anr. vs State And Ors. on 22 November, 2018

In exercising jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court can quash proceedings if there is no legal evidence or if there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings but the High Court does not ordinarily inquire as to whether the evidence is reliable or not. Where again, investigation into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then be the impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.(15) In Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration (1974) 4 SCC 522 the application filed by the accused under Section 561-A of the old Code for quashing the investigation was dismissed as being premature and incompetent on the finding that prima facie, the allegations in the FIR, if assumed to be correct, constitute a cognizable offence.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S K Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next