Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 236 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 15 October, 2004

Sh. Amrit Kaur vs Manmohan Singh on 3 September, 2022

In view of the prayer and submission made by Sh. Rohit Kaliyar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/ complainant, the present revision petition is disposed off as withdrawn with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint which may be considered by the Ld. Trial Court in accordance with law and as per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Vs. Fazru (supra).
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Shail Goyal vs Smt. Neelam on 31 July, 2025

9. In this case, perusal of the entire records shows that the second complaint in this case too was on almost identical facts, which was raised in the first complaint. So, the second complaint is not maintainable. This Court finds that the core and basis of both the complaints is the same. Nothing has come out in the second complaint, which is substantially new and not revealed in the first complaint. Therefore, the second complaint filed by respondent no. 2 in this case, is not covered within exceptional circumstances as explained in paragraph no. 15 of the judgment in the case of Poonam Chand Jain and Another Vs. Fazru (supra). In such view of the matter, the second complaint filed by respondent no. 2, cannot be entertained. As reiterated earlier, just to harass and victimize the applicants, respondent no. 1 filed another complaint case against the applicants, which is based on almost same allegations as were made in the first complaint case filed by respondent no. 2. As such, the first complaint case was dismissed in non-prosecution, as the same was not pursued by respondent no. 2. It clearly shows that the dispute between the parties is purely a matrimonial dispute and the second 6 time, the complaint has been filed just to create pressure upon the applicants.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rekha vs Abdul Wahaf on 30 September, 2010

18. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that the present complaint is a second private complaint, which has been filed on the same set of facts, and it is not maintainable under law and to substantiate the same, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Poonam Chand Jain Vs. Fazru", reported in 2005 SCC (Cri.) 190, in which, it is held by the Supreme Court as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - R Mala - Full Document

Chandran Ratnaswami vs The State on 17 September, 2014

15.The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, has drawn the attention of this court to the malicious intention and ulterior motive with which the present complaint came to be filed in respect of alteration of their own document, to which the second respondent defacto complainant is third party. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in this regard sought to argue that the present complaint which is third in nature, is not maintainable by reason of pendency of Crl.OP.3883/2013 filed under section 482 for direction to register the first complaint dated 13.2.2013 for the same cause of action. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited the following authorities in support of his contention that the present complaint, which is third in nature, on the same set of facts, is not maintainable: (i)AIR 2003 SC 702 (Mahesh Chand v. B.Janardhan Reddy and another); (ii)AIR 2005 SC 38 (Poonam Chand Jain and another v. Fazru); (iii)AIR 2009 SC 2380 (Hira Lal and others v. State of UP and others);(iv)(2012) 1 SCC 130 (Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar and another); and (v)AIR 2013 SC 1048 (Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others). In all these cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principle that the second complaint is maintainable only on fresh facts and the second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - K B Vasuki - Full Document

Samta Naidu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2020

“26. While considering the issue at hand in Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar20 this Court, after considering its earlier judgments in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar2, Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur12, Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy15 and Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru21 held: (Shivshankar Singh case20, SCC p. 136, para 18) “18. … it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint 19 (2013) 9 SCC 245 20 (2012) 1 SCC 130 21 (2004) 13 SCC 269 Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 22 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Gautam Dey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2022

While considering the issue at hand in Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar this Court, after considering its earlier judgments in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur, Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru held : (Shivshankar Singh case, SCC p. 136, para 18) '18. ... it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit.'
Jharkhand High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Mohammad Mushfik (In Fir Mushfik Urf ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 3 April, 2026

26. While considering the issue at hand in Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar this Court, after considering its earlier judgments in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur, Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru held : (Shivshankar Singh case, SCC p. 136, para 18)
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - A Moin - Full Document

Jitender Bajaj vs State (U.T. Chandigarh) And Anr. on 25 April, 2005

In my opinion, the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar, Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, Major General A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur , Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur, , Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy, , and Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru, 2005 SCC (Cri) 190 : 2005 Cri LJ 100, do not cover the facts of the present case. In none of these judgments, the situations where the first complaint was dismissed after summoning of the accused, the accused stands acquitted under Section 256 of the Code because of non-appearance of the complainant and his counsel; and because of the fact that the Judicial Magistrate, in his discretion, did not think it proper to adjourn the case to some other day; and the said order was never challenged by the complainant before the High Court and the same became final, have been considered. It is well established principle that while considering the ratio laid down in one case, the Court will have to bear in mind that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be true. Since the generality of expressions which may be found therein are not intended to be expositions of the whole of the law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. In the instant case, once the Judicial Magistrate dismissed the first complaint for non-prosecution, which amounts to acquittal of the accused under Section 256 of the Code and the said order has become final, the second verbatim complaint is not maintainable.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 21 - S K Mittal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next