Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 853 (4.16 seconds)
Documents citing M. Krishnan vs Vijay Singh And Anr on 11 October, 2001

Ratan Chakraborty & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 April, 2011

30. Having regard to the submission of the learned Advocates for the parties, materials on record and other circumstances, it appears that though as per the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners the dispute involved in this matter is a civil dispute having two successive agreements between the parties and having an order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum concerned the petitioners have already complied with the direction of the said Forum, and so no criminal proceeding can be proceeded with regarding the alleged offences under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners, yet it also appears that the petitioners have paid an amount of Rs. 52,000/- only to the opposite party No.2 as compensation and cost, and complied with the directions of the said Forum in part only and not entirely. As per the decision reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2646 in the case of State of A.P. v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah and (2001) 8 Supreme Court Case 645 in the case of M. Krishnan V. Vijay Singh And Other pendency of any civil dispute between the parties cannot be a bar to any criminal proceedings between the parties nor the same can be ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the accused and inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 28 Procedure is not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and it is also not the appropriate stage to consider as to whether the criminal prosecution against the present petitioners as accused persons would stand or not without taking evidence or trial, nor it can be ascertained without taking evidence and trial as to whether the allegations made by the defacto-complainant against the present petitioners as accused persons would be substantiated by evidence or not, for which reason it would not be just, legal and proper at this stage to quash the impugned proceedings. It also appears that by proceeding with the said criminal proceeding no abuse of process of the Court would be caused nor the ends of justice would suffer for not quashing the impugned proceedings, and as such there is no reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Pondicherry Industrial Promotion vs M/S.Shasun Leasing And Finance on 21 June, 2011

15. The Judgments of the Honourable Apex Court relied upon by the respondent as reported in 2001(4) Crimes 65 (SC) in between M.Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and in AIR 2009 SC 428, between Nikhil Merchant V. C.B.I would discuss upon the facts of forgery and fabrication of documents, in which, criminal elements of crime could be presumed. As far as this case is concerned, there is no such prima facie case of criminality of cheating or conspiracy for taking the complaint on file.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

Smt. Madhavi Ramesh Dudani vs Mr. Ramesh Kimatrai Dudani on 24 November, 2017

"The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few--Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [JT 1988 (1) SC 279], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd (1996) 5 SCC 591;State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164 , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd (2000) 3 SCC 269 Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 23:12:06 :::HCHP 19 (2005) 1 SCC 122 . The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Suraj Narain Prasad Sinha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 25 November, 2013

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P.; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; Savita v. State of Rajasthan and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat].
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 42 - Cited by 1 - S Pandey - Full Document

Ashish vs State on 2 March, 2012

(8) It was submitted that the present case is not a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court which, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, has to be utilized very sparingly. It was submitted that the entire narration of the complaint clearly makes out case against the applicants and other accused and at every stage the accused have taken undue advantage of their position and have also received wrongful gain out of these transactions, whereas the original complainant has suffered wrongful loss. It was further submitted that the complainant continued to buy the bikes and the materials on advance payments and initially there was no provision of S.B.L.C. to be issued as averred in the complaint but when the complainant was on the verge of opening showroom, after having invested huge amount on stocks, the accused insisted for S.B.L.C. only and even refused to accept the bank guarantee. It was further submitted that the complainant, in order to prevent its goodwill and reputation from being tarnished, had no option but to give S.B.L.C. of Rs.110 crores upon assurance by original accused No.7 that it would be utilized for import of bikes, spares and equipments required by the complainant only. It was submitted that as such instead of utilizing S.B.L.C. given by the complainant, as promised, the accused thereafter used it for its own benefit. It was submitted that only because a civil suit is filed it does not take away the right of the complainant to file and initiate criminal proceedings. It was submitted that the averments made that the complainant clearly established the offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Sections 120(B), 418, 504 and 114 the IPC. It was further alleged that because of stay granted by this Court it is an absolutely doubtful whether all the applicants and other accused would be available for trial or not. It was pointed out that the impugned complaint if taken at face value clearly demonstrates the offences which are attributed against the accused. It was further submitted that only because there is clause of arbitration as provided under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is one of the covenants of LoI, would not take away the right of the complainant to file the present complaint, more particularly when all the accused are not signatories of the said LoI. It was submitted that a clear case is made out against the original accused and the present application is filed at a very primitive stage, before the Court is to consider the report to be submitted by the investigation agency. It was therefore submitted that the application deserves to be dismissed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Dr. Shashi Tharoor vs State & Anr. on 29 August, 2024

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 at the outset challenges the maintainability of petition on the grounds of delay and laches and submits that the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been initiated with the intent of delaying the trial. Reliance is further placed upon Bata v. Anama Behera (supra), Rajesh Chetwal v. State (supra), Vandana Agarwal v. The State of West Bengal (supra), Londhe Prakash Bhagwan v. Dattatraya Eknath Mane (supra), Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (supra), M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (supra), CBI v. Aryan Singh (supra), Vedavaag Systems v. Ricoh India (supra) and Queen Empress v. Taki Hussain (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - A K Mendiratta - Full Document

Arjun Singh & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 19 March, 2015

{Ref. State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. [AIR 1982 SC 949]; Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [AIR 1988 SC 709]; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors. [AIR 1993 SC 892]; Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Ors. [AIR 1996 SC 309; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [AIR 2000 SC 754]; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [AIR 2003 SC 1069]; M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [AIR 1988 SC 128]; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705]; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. s. Bangarappa & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 41]; Zundu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Ors. [AIR 2005 SC 9]; M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors. [AIR 2000 SC 1869]; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala & Anr. [(2009) 14 SCC 466]; V.V.S. Rama Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [(2009) 7 SCC 234]; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna & Anr. v. Peddi Ravindra Babu & Anr. [(2009) 11 SCC 203]; Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 877]; State of Bihar & Anr. v. P.P. Sharma & Anr. [AIR 1991 SC 1260]; Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2001) 2 SCC 17]; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh & Anr. [(2001) 8 SCC 645]; Savita v. State of Rajasthan [(2005) 12 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:49:25 :::HCHP ...11...
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 13 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Ashok Mukherjee vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 2 February, 2006

Mr. Roy, ld. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, on referring the case of M. Krishna v. Vijay Singh reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 19, contended that not only the two proceedings are of different nature but also reliefs are different and so continuation of the criminal proceedings will not be a bar in simultaneous proceeding with the civil suit. Mr. Roy further contended that a criminal case may be stayed only on special consideration which is absent here and as such the ld. Magistrate rightly rejected the prayer.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next