Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (5.95 seconds)
Documents citing M C Chaithra vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2008

Sri.M.S.Niranjan Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2020

In the case of M.C.Chaithra and Others v/s State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2008 Karnataka page 2710 it is held that meticulous analysis of the material of the prosecution is not permissible at the stage of framing charge, even a cursory reading of the statement and averments in the complaint would go to establish that the grounds made out by the prosecution are not sufficient to hold that the charge should be framed against the accused for the offences punishable 9 under section 306 of IPC for abetment of suicide as defined under section 107 of IPC.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Sri.Parameshwarappa S/O Late ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2022

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.C.CHAITHRA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2710. This judgment is of the year 2008. The clock of the flow of law did not freeze in the year 2008, as much water has flown thereafter in interpretation of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC by plethora of judgments of the Apex Court. I therefore, deem it appropriate to, at the outset, notice such flow of law and then consider the facts obtaining in the case at hand on the touch stone of such interpretation by the Apex Court. The Apex Court interpreting Section 306 of IPC, has in several judgments, held the existence of mens rea or instigation is necessary to make out an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Smt. Geeta Ramesh Handevale @ Gouli vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2022

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.C.CHAITHRA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2710. This judgment is of the year 2008. The clock of the flow of law did not freeze in the year 2008, as much water has flown thereafter in interpretation of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC by plethora of judgments of the Apex Court. I therefore, deem it appropriate to, at the outset, notice such flow of law and then consider the facts obtaining in the case at hand on the touch stone of such interpretation by the Apex Court. The Apex Court interpreting Section 306 of IPC, has in several judgments, held the existence of mens rea or instigation is necessary to make out an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Dyamanna S/O Yamanappa Talagalamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2022

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.C.CHAITHRA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2710. This judgment is of the year 2008. The clock of the flow of law did not freeze in the year 2008, as much water has flown thereafter in interpretation of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC by plethora of judgments of the Apex Court. I therefore, deem it appropriate to, at the outset, notice such flow of law and then consider the facts obtaining in the case at hand on the touch stone of such interpretation by the Apex Court. The Apex Court interpreting Section 306 of IPC, has in several judgments, held the existence of 16 mens rea or instigation is necessary to make out an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri G S P Veera Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2022

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.C.CHAITHRA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2710. This judgment is of the year 2008. The clock of the flow of law did not freeze in the year 2008, as much water has flown thereafter in interpretation of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC by plethora of judgments of the Apex Court. I therefore, deem it appropriate to, at the outset, notice such flow of law and then consider the facts obtaining in the case at hand on the touch stone of such interpretation by the Apex 8 Court. The Apex Court interpreting Section 306 of IPC, has in several judgments, held the existence of mens rea or instigation is necessary to make out an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Mr Alok Kumar @ Alok Singh vs State By Byatayanapura P S on 23 June, 2022

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.C.CHAITHRA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2710. This judgment is of the year 2008. The clock of the flow of law did not freeze in the year 2008, as much water has flown thereafter in interpretation of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC by plethora of judgments of the Apex Court. I therefore, deem it appropriate to, at the outset, notice such flow of law and then 10 consider the facts obtaining in the case at hand on the touch stone of such interpretation by the Apex Court. The Apex Court interpreting Section 306 of IPC, has in several judgments, held the existence of mens rea or instigation is necessary to make out an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Smt Bhagyashri M K vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2022

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.C.CHAITHRA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2710. This judgment is of the year 2008. The clock of the flow of law did not freeze in the year 2008, as much water has flown thereafter in interpretation of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC by plethora of judgments of the Apex Court. I therefore, deem it appropriate to, at the outset, notice such flow of law and then consider the facts obtaining in the case at hand on the touch stone of such interpretation by the Apex Court. The Apex Court interpreting Section 306 of IPC, has in several judgments, held the existence of 19 mens rea or instigation is necessary to make out an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Ramesha A vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2022

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.C.CHAITHRA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2710. This judgment is of the year 2008. The clock of the flow of law did not freeze in the year 2008, as much water has flown thereafter in interpretation of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC by plethora of judgments of the Apex Court. I therefore, deem it appropriate to, at the outset, notice such flow of law and then
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Smt Inchitha @ Inchitha H P vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2022

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.C.CHAITHRA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2710. This judgment is of the year 2008. The clock of the flow of law did not freeze in the year 2008, as much water has flown thereafter in interpretation of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC by plethora of judgments of the Apex Court. I therefore, deem it appropriate to, at the outset, notice such flow of law and then consider the facts obtaining in the case at hand on the touch stone of such interpretation by the Apex Court. The Apex Court interpreting Section 306 of IPC, has in several judgments, held the existence of mens rea or instigation is necessary to make out an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 Next