Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Surojeet Mallick vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 November, 2022

Mohammed Zubair vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others on 22 May, 2025

48. Also we are of the view that from a reading of the FIR, it cannot be said that the offences under Sections 196, 228, 299, 356(3), 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 are not made out. Thus, it would be an exercise in futility to examine whether an offence under Section 152 of the B.N.S. was at all made out in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel (supra), Rafiq Ahmedbhai Paliwala (supra) and Somjeet Mallick (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S Varma - Full Document

Shweta Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 April, 2026

7. Reference can also be made to Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2024 (10) SCC 527, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that during judicial examination of a prayer for quashing of an FIR, the cognizance order, or subsequent proceedings, Courts must evaluate the allegations and material collected during investigation at face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage. The Court is also not required to ascertain at this stage as to which specific offence is committed. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when the material collected during investigation is before the Court, that the Court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence, the accused should be tried.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1