Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Jehangir Pestonji Wadia vs Framji Rustomji Wadia on 5 May, 1928

Gopal Chandra Chakraborti And Anr. vs Emperor And Ors. on 14 May, 1929

So in Jahangir Pestonji v. Framji Rustomji 112 Ind. Cas. 477 : 30 Bom. L.R. 962 : 29 Cr. L.J. 153. another case of defamation, it was said that the test seems to be whether the prosecution is public or private. Where it is public, the Court as a rule in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, would not stay criminal proceedings, where it was private(as in that case) there would not be the same reluctance of the Curt to interfere.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Raminder Kaur Bedi vs Jatinder Singh Bedi on 22 November, 1988

In Jehangir Pestonji Wadia v. Framji Rustomji Wadia,1928 (28) Criminal Law Journal page 1053 the Bombay High Court had held that if the object of the criminal proceedings in a private prosecution is to prejudice the trial of the civil suit or use the same as a lever to coerce the accused into a compromise of the civil suit, criminal proceedings can be stayed till decision of the civil suit. So, in my opinion, the order of the Magistrate is well based and is a just order to be passed in such like cases and does not call for any interference by this Court by exercising its revisional power under Section 397 of Cr. Procedure Code or even in inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Dhanrajmal Gobindram And Company ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 March, 1970

In all such cases one of the matters which the Court has to consider is whether, as Mr. Justice Patkar said in Jehangir v. Framji , the object of the criminal proceedings is to prejudice the trial of the civil suit or to use them as a lever to coerce the accused into a compromise of the civil suit, and in that connection the question whether the criminal complaint or the civil suit was instituted first is always important. The Courts have frequently drawn a distinction between public and private prosecutions and indicated that stronger reasons for staying proceedings should be required in the case of the former than in the case of the latter.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yelchuri Ranganayakalu Chetty And Anr. vs K. Gopala Chetty on 3 October, 1952

(iii) Is the criminal proceeding instituted with the motive of hampering the conduct of the civil proceeding? Because, if it is so the criminal proceeding may be ordered to be stayed: -- 'Jehangir v. Framji', 29 Cri L J 1053: 112 Ind Cas 477 (Bom); -- 'Anna Ayyar v. Emperor', 30 Mad 226: -- 'In re Subramanya Chetty', 2 Weir 415; -- 'in re Ramchandra Babaji', AIR 1933 Bom 307. This, however, will not apply in the case of public prosecutions such as prosecutions under Section 195 or Section 476.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Mehul Chinubhai Choksi vs State Of Gujarat & on 5 May, 2017

37 I   am   conscious   of   the   fact   that   in   the   case   on   hand,   I   am   not  concerned with the issue of staying the criminal proceedings during the  pendency   of   a   civil   suit.   However,   the   principles   laid   down   in   the  Bombay High Court decision needs to be closely considered. Prima facie,  I   am   of   the   view   that   the   whole   idea   in   initiating   the   criminal  proceedings by the first informant is to prejudice the trial of the civil suit  and  to use  the  same   as   a  lever  to  coerce  the  accused persons  into  a  Page 46 of 57 HC-NIC Page 46 of 57 Created On Sat May 06 01:24:48 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/4758/2015 CAV JUDGMENT compromise of the civil suit.
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 3 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Louis Philip Dias vs Mahadev Barik Raut on 31 August, 1933

In all such cases one of the matters which the Court has to consider is whether, as Mr. Justice Patkar said in Jehangir v. Framji , the object of the criminal proceedings is to prejudice the trial of the civil suit or to use them as a lever to coerce the accused into a compromise of the civil suit, and in that connection the question whether the criminal complaint or the civil suit was instituted first is always important. The Courts have frequently drawn a distinction between public and private prosecutions and indicated that stronger reasons for staying proceedings should be required in the case of the former than in the case of the latter. That may well be, I think, because in the case of a public prosecution the intention to prejudice civil litigation is not at all likely to exist. But this is not the only test nor is priority in time necessarily conclusive. Some cases are obviously more suitable for determination by a civil Court, for instance, it is not uncommon in Bombay to have complaints of breach of trust by one partner against another. Such cases often involve the examination of complicated accounts, for which the civil Courts have better means at their disposal than criminal Courts, and indeed it may often be impossible to say whether any criminal offence has been committed until accounts of the partnership have been taken and the civil rights of the parties have been determined.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Srikisson Beriwalla And Anr. vs Emperor on 19 December, 1934

In support of this argument reliance is placed on Gopal Chandra v. Suresh Chandra 1929 Cal 563, Jehangir Pestonji Wadia v. Framji Rustomji Wadia (1928) 112 IC 477 and Chitrala Ramiah v. Natu Kula Ramiah 1927 Mad 778. Undoubtedly the fact that it is a public prosecution and not a private one is a matter which has to be considered. But that only goes to show that the prosecution may be conducted in good faith and it does not carry us much further than that.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Parmeshwar Ram Bhadani vs The State Of Bihar And Anr. on 28 August, 1950

In Jehangir Pastonji v. Framji Rustomji Wadia, 30 Bom. L. R. 962 : (29 Cr. L. J. 1033), Mirza J. points out the distinction between public and private prosecution. At p. 965 the learned Judge states that the "test seems to be whether the prosecution is public or private. Where it is public, the Court, as a rule, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, would not stay criminal proceedings. Where it is private, as in the present case, there would not be the same reluctance on the part of the Court to interfere with criminal proceedings."
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1