Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 838 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Nupur Talwar vs Cbi & Anr on 7 June, 2012

Atul S/O Ramesh Rumale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 24 October, 2016

26 CRI. W.P. 28/2015 - JUDGMENT On careful perusal of the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph no.9 of the impugned judgment and the ratio laid down in the above cited cases, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded his limits and considered the probable defences of the accused (respondent no.2 herein), while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Mrs. Binita Shah Ashishbhai And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. . And Another on 11 November, 2022

22. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Dr. Nupur Talwar(Supra) is sought to be distinguished on the ground that the observations made by the Court in aforesaid judgement have to be read with reference to the facts of that case in asmsuch as the proceedings in aforementioned case arose out of a police challan case. The case in hand is a complaint case and the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on a complaint after recording his prima-facie satisfaction. As such, the ratio laid down in aforementioned case is not applicable to the present case and is therefore clearly distinguishable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - R Misra - Full Document

Mr. Sunil Aggarwal (Director) vs State Of Delhi on 1 November, 2013

Following is explained by the Supreme Court in Dr. Nupur Talwar Vs. CBI (Supra) :­ "There is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing of charge, why should already burdened trial courts be further 24 of 27 burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court proceedings and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays".
Delhi District Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Badri Prasad And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 December, 2021

32. The question as to whether an order issuing summons could be held to be vitiated on the ground that it did not contain reasons was also examined in the decision of Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another32 and taking into consideration the provisions under Section 461 of the Code, which expressly delineates irregularities in procedure which would vitiate proceedings, it was held that since orders passed under Section 204 do not find mention under Section 461, the said orders could not be faulted on the ground that they did not contain reasons.
Allahabad High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 1 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document

Rajeev Kumar @ Rajiv Bouri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 February, 2022

10. In view of above facts, it is pertinent to point out here that if the Magistrate after differing with the opinion of the police takes cognizance, he is required to assign reason differing with the facts of the police. Proposition has been laid down in the case of "Nupur Talwar) (supra). In the case in hand, the learned Magistrate differing with the opinion of the police has taken cognizance against the petitioners who have not sent up for trial, it transpires that the learned Magistrate has committed wrong in differing with the view of the police without assigning any proper reason.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Atmaram Yadav 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 June, 2022

29. The aforementioned position with regard to the order issuing summons/process not required to be a detailed and reasoned order was reiterated in Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another34 after noticing that the provisions under the Code do not require detailed consideration or passing of reasoned orders at the stage of summons/issuance of process.
Allahabad High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 0 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document

Mohd. Hanif S/O Abdul Rashid And Others vs State Of Mah. Through Police Station ... on 5 July, 2018

7. Mr. Subodh Dharmadhikari, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that although there could not be any quarrel with the proposition that the Magistrate was not bound with the final report submitted by the Police upon completion of investigation, when the Magistrate differed from the opinion in the final report, he was expected to apply his mind to material on record and to take into consideration the entire material, including statements of all witnesses before issuing summons for offences other than the offence that was recommended in the final report. It was submitted that in the present case, the Magistrate took into consideration ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:48:47 ::: 5 WP381-18.odt statement of only three witnesses, who were already accused in the cross case and that the statements of two independent witnesses were not taken into account by the Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 27.06.2017, issuing summons against the petitioners. It was submitted that the Sessions Court also did not refer to the relevant material on record and there was no application of mind by the Sessions Court while deciding the revision application. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nupur Talwar .vs. C.B.I. - (2012) 12 Supreme Court Cases 188.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next