Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)Documents citing
Employees Of Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal ... vs Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal Mills Limited on 7 April, 1958
Amresh Pandey vs The State Of Bihar on 19 June, 2025
In Ramgopal v. State of M.P.
[Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531] ,
Surya Kant, J. speaking for this Court, in a case
involving a charge under Section 326IPC, while
annulling the proceedings, felicitously set out the
statement of law and applied it to the facts of the
said case as under : (SCC pp. 542-43, paras 19-
Tulsi Kumar Saw vs The State Of Bihar on 9 December, 2025
"10. So far as the first question is concerned, it
would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of
this Court in Ramgopal v. State of M.P. [Ramgopal v. State
of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834] ,
wherein, a two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two
of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J.) was confronted
with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it
has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a court under
Section 320CrPC cannot be construed as a proscription
against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the
powers of the High Courts under Section 482CrPC. It was
further held that the touchstone for exercising the
extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section
482CrPC, would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85692 of 2024 dt.09-12-2025
11/17
Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having
given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact
that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a
settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise
of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.
Daan Bahadur vs Raj Bahadur And 4 Others on 20 January, 2021
2. Solitary grievance of the petitioner appears to be that his restoration application filed in partition suit being Case No. 636 of 2015 (Daan Bahadur Vs. Raj Bahadur & Ors), wherein the petitioner is a plaintiff, has remained pending before respondent no. 6, since 2018.
1