Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18368 (4.16 seconds)
Documents citing Madan Mohan Abbot vs State Of Punjab on 26 March, 2008

P.Pavithran vs State Represented By on 7 July, 2008

6. I fully agree with the learned Public Prosecutor. I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can, need or ought to be invoked. It would perpetuate injustice and not justice if such a composition is accepted. The offence in this case must be held to be too serious and not one which can be left to the private citizens to talk over, negotiate, settle and compound. I am persuaded to agree that the composition cannot be accepted and the further proceedings cannot be dropped.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Basant - Full Document

Rajesh @ Arun vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2008

6. But the offence under Section 326 I.P.C is not compoundable. The counsel, in these circumstances, rely on the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287]. They contend that the dispute is purely private and personal between the victims and the petitioner. No public Crl.M.C. No.2313 of 2008 3 policy or public interest is involved. The additional respondents having compounded the offences, there is no meaning in the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Basant - Full Document

Teklal Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 June, 2022

15. Having taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, it is found that the informant Jirwa Devi has come forward to enter into the compromise by virtue of I.A. No.4703 of 2022 between both the parties including surviving three appellants and the informant, in order to ensure the substantive and responsible justice, this court finds just and proper where the 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1127 of 2003 compromise between the parties is to be allowed and in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held in the case of Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Panjab and Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, it is found that I.A. No.4703 of 2022, which is a joint compromise petition that both the parties wanted to lead peaceful life and the informant categorically stated that she does not want to proceed with this case as she does not want to pursue this case further.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - N Kumar - Full Document

Chetram vs State Of Haryana & Another on 28 February, 2011

In view of the above compromise and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone four months and seven days in the Jail and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), this criminal revision is disposed of by observing that the CRR No. 2518 of 2006 -7- compromise is fair and voluntary and the petitioner has already undergone four months and seven days, nothing survives for adjudication.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Bahri - Full Document

Chetankumar Ranchhodbhai Patel & 4 vs State Of Gujarat & on 23 July, 2015

In   view   of   settlement   between   the   parties   and  considering   the   principles   of   law   enunciated   by   the  Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab  (supra)  and  Gian   Singh   v.   State   of   Punjab   And   Page 5 of 6 R/SCR.A/4423/2015 JUDGMENT Another (supra), the following order is passed:
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next