Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon vs Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel on 31 August, 2021

Yuvraj Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 17 February, 2022

19. Thereafter, on 15.09.02021, with learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner having wished to address arguments in detail and counsel for the State having cited yet another judgment of the Supreme Court 14 of 48 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2022 20:21:19 ::: CRM-M-9035-2021 15 in Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon vs. Niteshkumar Mangalbhai Patel and another 2021 SCC Online (SC) 647, this court had directed the SP to file an affidavit as to whether any coercive steps were required to be taken against the petitioner for any reasons, with the interim order directing that no coercive steps be taken against him however continued at that stage.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - A R Singh - Full Document

Khuraijam Inaocha Singh vs The Secretary on 30 August, 2022

Similar were the observations made by the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another [AIR 2017 SC 4843] and again in Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel and another [AIR 2021 SC 4109]. Therein, the Supreme Court also observed that, distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute and they would stand on a distinct footing, in so far as exercise of inherent power to quash is concerned. 12 However, as already noted supra, specific allegations were made by the Secretary of the School Managing Committee as to how the accused tried to interfere with the affairs of the School. These allegations, if proved, would undoubtedly constitute the offences alleged. The allegations would therefore require to be tested by way of a proper trial, so as to ascertain whether the accused committed such offences, warranting action against them under law. This is therefore not a case where the complaint does not reflect a prima facie case. That being so, it is not for this Court at this stage to decide whether the accused committed the offences alleged against them. It would be for the learned Magistrate to decide the same after a full-fledged trial. Further, having chosen to approach the Civil Court, Accused No. 2 himself got dismissed the original suits filed by him as not pressed. Therefore, this is not a fit case for application of the aforestated principle or for exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [15] On the above analysis, this Court finds no grounds made out to quash either the subject complaint case or the orders passed therein.
Manipur High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P V Kumar - Full Document

Sunil Kumar Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2025

Indisputably, the Supreme Court in case of Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon (supra) has observed that exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the FIR only on the ground that civil dispute is also pending has to be done in a very exceptional circumstance when Court comes to the conclusion that initiating criminal prosecution is an abuse of process of law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Vishal Jayantilal Rajdev vs Indian Overseas Bank on 14 December, 2021

8.Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the facts of the case it appears that the DRT could not have issued oral directions to the respondent Bank in view of the decision of the Apex Court dated 31.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 884 of 2021 in case of Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel and anr wherein it is held by the Apex Court as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Ramchandra Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 January, 2023

9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant, in support of his submissions relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021) decided on 13.04.2021, Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal 787 of 2021) decided on 13.08.2021, Lalita Kumari Vs. Government Of U.P. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008) decided on 12.11.2013, Aziza Begum Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2012) decided 12.01.2012, Manoj Kumaria Shankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2014(3) Raj.CriC 965, and Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon vs Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel (Criminal Appeal 884 of 2021) decided on 31.08.2021.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Sudhir Bhargava & Ors vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 17 September, 2025

12. The Court takes note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salimbhai (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court deprecated the practise of passing oral orders. The Hon'ble Court took the view that judicial assessments change with the roster and in the absence of any written record of what has transpired in the course of a judicial proceeding, it would set a dangerous precedent if the parties and the Investigating Officer were expected to rely on unrecorded oral observations.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1