Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1515 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing T.T.Antony vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 12 July, 2001

Peer Pasha vs National Investigating Agency on 5 April, 2023

16. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the respective learned counsel what is germane to be considered is whether registration of multiple FIRs against the petitioners on certain solitary incident is tenable or otherwise. It is not disputed that the fact that triggered the entire incident is a face book post or a post on social media which led to unrest or rioting. The facts are elaborately narrated hereinabove and they would not require any reiteration. It becomes necessary to notice the line of law as 18 enunciated by the Apex Court in the facts of the kind, as well as registration of multiple FIRs on a solitary incident. At the outset I deem it appropriate to notice the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Apex Court in the case of T.T. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA1 has held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Muzammil Pasha vs National Investigating Agency on 5 April, 2023

16. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the respective learned counsel what is germane to be considered is whether registration of multiple FIRs against the petitioners on certain solitary incident is tenable or otherwise. It is not disputed that the fact that triggered the entire incident is a face book post or a post on social media which led to unrest or rioting. The facts are elaborately narrated hereinabove and they would not require any reiteration. It becomes necessary to notice the line of law as 18 enunciated by the Apex Court in the facts of the kind, as well as registration of multiple FIRs on a solitary incident. At the outset I deem it appropriate to notice the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Apex Court in the case of T.T. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA1 has held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

M. Sundaramoorthy vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2011

7. In the present case so far as the first FIR (Crime No.35 of 2011) is concerned, that case was registered on the premise that death of the children was caused by the deceased Saseendran and he committed suicide. In other words, charge under Sec.302 of the IPC in the first FIR is attributed to the deceased Saseendran while in respect of his committing suicide the section incorporated is under Sec.174 of the Code. In the second FIR, what the police would allege is that deceased Saseendran caused the death of children and himself committed suicide due to abetment and criminal intimidation by the persons mentioned in the second FIR. In other words, it only supplements the allegations contained in the first FIR as to the reason for the deceased Saseendran committing suicide after causing the death of the children. The decision in Antony Vs. Stae of Kerala (supra) was explained in Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash (supra) to the effect that the former decision did not exclude registration of a complaint in the form of a counter case from the purview of the Code. I am not persuaded to think that the second FIR in this case is in respect of separate incident independent of the incident in the first FIR or is in respect of a counter case so that a second FIR could have been registered.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Muzammil Pasha vs National Investigating Agency on 5 April, 2023

16. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the respective learned counsel what is germane to be considered is whether registration of multiple FIRs against the petitioners on certain solitary incident is tenable or otherwise. It is not disputed that the fact that triggered the entire incident is a face book post or a post on social media which led to unrest or rioting. The facts are elaborately narrated hereinabove and they would not require any reiteration. It becomes necessary to notice the line of law as 18 enunciated by the Apex Court in the facts of the kind, as well as registration of multiple FIRs on a solitary incident. At the outset I deem it appropriate to notice the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Apex Court in the case of T.T. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA1 has held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Kumaran Muthu @ Muthukumaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2026

36. If the prosecution possesses materials showing complicity of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 in the later money trail, the appropriate course, consistent with T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala10, is to collect such material and proceed in accordance with 10 2001 (6) SCC 181 17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 01:17:47 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.19923 of 2025 law within the framework of the earlier investigation in a legally permissible manner, rather than multiplying proceedings on overlapping allegations which are, in substance, part of the same transaction stream.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next