Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (2.36 seconds)
Documents citing Shadakshari vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2023

Sujeet Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 November, 2024

On facts of present case, the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shadakshari vs. State of Karnataka and Another (supra) is holds field wherein Hon'ble Court has held that this court has been consistent in holding that Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in discharge of official duties. It cannot be doubted that offence of causing assault, hurling abuse and threats by a public servant come within the purview of discharge of his official duties. The test for invoking Section 197 Cr.P.C. is what the public servant had allegedly done, was done in garb of or by virtue of official duties. Such type of offence can be done by any person whether he is public servant or private individual, no question of sanction attracts on facts of the case. This is also trite law that question of sanction is to be determined on the basis of allegations made in complaint and FIR. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the learned court below is misdirected itself by holding that the complaint is barred by non compliance of Section 197 Cr.P.C. On facts of the case, there is no requirement of sanction as envisaged under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The impugned order suffers from vice of illegality and it cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narreddy Rajasekhara Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 10 May, 2024

30. In the present case, using of third degree methods on 2nd respondent/defacto complainant in order to compel him to give false evidence implicated unconnected persons into the crime, would not certainly come within the discharge of official duties of A.1. The alleged acts of A.1 are not integrally connected with discharge of his official duties. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the aforesaid the petitioner/ A.1 was relieved from the investigation in the above case on 29.03.2023 and the CBI pleased before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that SIT is reconstituted for expeditious investigation and the same is reflected in the Order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Criminal) No.104 of 2023.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - K S Reddy - Full Document

Ram Singh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 May, 2024

30. In the present case, using of third degree methods on 2nd respondent/defacto complainant in order to compel him to give false evidence implicated unconnected persons into the crime, would not certainly come within the discharge of official duties of A.1. The alleged acts of A.1 are not integrally connected with discharge of his official duties. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the aforesaid the petitioner/ A.1 was relieved from the investigation in the above case on 29.03.2023 and the CBI pleased before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that SIT is reconstituted for expeditious investigation and the same is reflected in the Order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Criminal) No.104 of 2023.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - K S Reddy - Full Document

Date Of Decision: 05.07.2024 vs Ghanshayam Misra on 5 July, 2024

32. Having taken note of aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court in Shadakshari supra held that the question whether complainant in that case was involved in fabrication of official documents, while misusing official position, is a matter of trial, which certainly cannot be decided in the private complaint filed by the complainant, qua which otherwise prior sanction as envisaged under Section 197 Cr.P.C was required to be taken by the petitioner-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Atul Ashok Mundada vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 September, 2024

He further relied on the case of Shadakshari Vs. State of Karnataka and others ; MANU 11 Cri.Appln.2368-22+1.odt Supreme Court 0042 of 2024. A complaint was filed against the applicant for irregularly creating the documents of property in the name of the deceased person despite knowing that those were fake documents, such as the death certificate, family tree of the original successor of the land of the appellate etc., for illegal gain. The accused/respondent No.2 had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR registered on the above allegations. The High Court recorded the findings that there were specific and serious allegations against respondent No.2, even as to the creation of the death certificate of a living person. A reading of the FIR made out a case for investigation, and it was too premature to interfere with such FIR. Adverting to the case of Lalita Kumari, the High did not interfere, though granted liberty to respondent No.2 to seek his legal remedy in the event of any adverse report is made. Subsequently, a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 468, 467, 465, 420, 409, 409, 466 and 423, read with Section 34 of the IPC. Again, respondent No.2 approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint dated 19.12.2016. The question before the Court was whether sanction was required to prosecute respondent No.2 (public servant), who faces accusation, amongst others, of creating 12 Cri.Appln.2368-22+1.odt fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus the public servant?
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Atul Ashok Mundada vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 2 September, 2024

He further relied on the case of Shadakshari Vs. State of Karnataka and others ; MANU 11 Cri.Appln.2368-22+1.odt Supreme Court 0042 of 2024. A complaint was filed against the applicant for irregularly creating the documents of property in the name of the deceased person despite knowing that those were fake documents, such as the death certificate, family tree of the original successor of the land of the appellate etc., for illegal gain. The accused/respondent No.2 had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR registered on the above allegations. The High Court recorded the findings that there were specific and serious allegations against respondent No.2, even as to the creation of the death certificate of a living person. A reading of the FIR made out a case for investigation, and it was too premature to interfere with such FIR. Adverting to the case of Lalita Kumari, the High did not interfere, though granted liberty to respondent No.2 to seek his legal remedy in the event of any adverse report is made. Subsequently, a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 468, 467, 465, 420, 409, 409, 466 and 423, read with Section 34 of the IPC. Again, respondent No.2 approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint dated 19.12.2016. The question before the Court was whether sanction was required to prosecute respondent No.2 (public servant), who faces accusation, amongst others, of creating 12 Cri.Appln.2368-22+1.odt fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus the public servant?
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lambodar Prasad Padhy vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 10 September, 2024

(vi) Learned counsel for CBI further submits that approval under Section 17A of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018 was sought on account of irregularities in NHAI projects and illegal gratification on the part of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3270/2023 Page 10 of 25 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:10.09.2024 19:02:30 NHAI officers. However, speaking order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Competent Authority reveals that the same deals with reference to issues of irregularities in the projects as raised in PE but is silent on the aspect of illegal gratification and merely mentions that no corroborating evidence has been made available to NHAI for establishing such facts. It is urged that it is for the Trial Court to adjudicate requirement of approval under Section 17A. The act of bribery is stated to be not covered in discharge of official functions/duties and approval is stated to have been sought only by way of abundant caution. Further, denial of the same does not impede the right to register FIR. Reliance is further placed upon Shadakshari versus State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC Online SC 48.
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - A K Mendiratta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next