Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22732 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 27 March, 2014

Subhash Rai vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 July, 2024

For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Vinod Maan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 September, 2024

[13]. It appears to us those criminal proceedings involving non- heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck postconviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab &Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 466, 29], and Laxmi Narayan [(2019) 5 SCC 688, 15]. [14]. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed between two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a 'settlement' through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Chitkara - Full Document

Mohd Umair @ Umer vs State ( Govt Nct Of Delhi) And Ors & Anr. on 12 March, 2021

For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - S Prasad - Full Document

Mr Rajesh Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 10 January, 2023

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties and taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case ofNarinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S D Singh - Full Document

Punna Sardar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 September, 2022

In view of the aforesaid propositions of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Gian Singh's case (Supra), Laxmi Narayan's case (Supra), Yogender Yadav's case (Supra), Narinder Singh's case (supra) and Ramgopal's case (Supra) and as it is found in the present case that the sole appellant- Punna Sardar and the victim girl P.W. 4 have solemnized the marriage and three children 12 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1088 of 2005 are born out of the said wedlock and now a joint compromise petition has been filed on their behalf including the appellant and the P.W. 4 vide I.A. 7249 of 2022 by swearing on affidavit by both of them. From the perusal of the said I.A. No. 7249 of 2022, it is found that the appellant and the victim P.W. 4 after solemnizing the marriage are living as husband and wife and out of their marriage three children were born and a son is 14 years and a daughter is aged about 8 years and another daughter is aged about 6 years and now they are living peacefully and happily and leading a very happy family life. The parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s). The victim P.W.4 has no grievance with the appellant and it is also evident from the testimony of the victim P.W. 4 who has been examined during the course of the trial that both were acquainted to each other from before and she categorically stated in para 2 of the cross examination that this appellant did not misbehave at all with her. At present both have married to each other and they are leading a happy married life and therefore in the larger interest of peace and tranquility it is a demand of the justice to ensure that let them lead a happy married life with the family member including three small children who are minor.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - N Kumar - Full Document

Mahender Singh Alias Sunny & Anr. vs The State & Ors. on 17 March, 2021

For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the CRL.M.C. 852/2021 Page 8 of 11 vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next