Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 958 (2.42 seconds)
Documents citing Satya Pal Anand vs State Of M.P. And Ors on 25 August, 2015

Kishanvihari Sharma @ Satya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2021

12. So far as the prayer of handing over the investigation to an impartial and independent agency is concerned, the same does not impress this Court as the offence or the complexity of the factual scenario involved and the nature of offence, are not such which may 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.469/2021 (Kishan Bihari Sharma alias Satya Vs. State of M.P. and others ) compel this Court to grant this relief.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - D K Agarwal - Full Document

K.Rajalingam vs R.Suganthalakshmi on 28 May, 2020

10. The judgement of the Full Bench in S.Ganapathi (supra) heavily relied upon the Full Bench Judgement of the Delhi High Court in [Ram Paul V. State and others] reported in 2015 3 MWN Criminal 491 and the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [Satya Pal Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others] reported in 2015 15 SCC 613. It is important to note that both these cases arose on a "Police Report" and not on a Private Complaint. Therefore, both these judgements, with respect, cannot form the basis in a case where the Court was specifically dealing with the right of a complainant against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint. After a thorough search, we find that there is not a single case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has equated the right of a complainant to that of a victim, in a case of acquittal arising out of a complaint. Even though, both the terms “ Complainant” and “Victim” can be interchanged while using it as a term Per se, the same cannot be done when it comes to dealing with the right of filing an Appeal against acquittal. In a case arising out of a Police Report, whether a person is called as a victim or a complainant, proviso to Section 372 of Cr.PC will come into operation. However, when it comes to a http://www.judis.nic.in 77 Crl.A. Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 and Crl.R.C. Nos.494 & 536 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.1789, 1794 & 7289 of 2019 complaint filed by a complainant, the Code deals with his right differently and gives him a separate path under Section 378 (4) of Cr.PC. By reading the term “Victim” into the term “Complainant” and attempting to create a right to the complainant under proviso to Section 372, will only end up in causing violence to the existing frame work of the code of Criminal Procedure. This was never intended by the Parliament and it does not fall within the scheme of things as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Madras High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 23 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Judgment In S.Ganapathy vs . N.Senthilvel [2016 (4)Ctc 119]” on 28 May, 2020

10. The judgement of the Full Bench in S.Ganapathi (supra) heavily relied upon the Full Bench Judgement of the Delhi High Court in [Ram Paul V. State and others] reported in 2015 3 MWN Criminal 491 and the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [Satya Pal Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others] reported in 2015 15 SCC 613. It is important to note that both these cases arose on a "Police Report" and not on a Private Complaint. Therefore, both these judgements, with respect, cannot form the basis in a case where the Court was specifically dealing with the right of a complainant against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint. After a thorough search, we find that there is not a single case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has equated the right of a complainant to that of a victim, in a case of acquittal arising out of a complaint. Even though, both the terms “ Complainant” and “Victim” can be interchanged while using it as a term Per se, the same cannot be done when it comes to dealing with the right of filing an Appeal against acquittal. In a case arising out of a Police Report, whether a person is called as a victim or a complainant, proviso to Section 372 of Cr.PC will come into operation. However, when it comes to a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 83 Crl.A. Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 and Crl.R.C. Nos.494 & 536 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.1789, 1794 & 7289 of 2019 complaint filed by a complainant, the Code deals with his right differently and gives him a separate path under Section 378 (4) of Cr.PC. By reading the term “Victim” into the term “Complainant” and attempting to create a right to the complainant under proviso to Section 372, will only end up in causing violence to the existing frame work of the code of Criminal Procedure. This was never intended by the Parliament and it does not fall within the scheme of things as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Madras High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 13 - V Bharathidasan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next