Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 136 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008

Ranjitsinh Jaswantsinh Saran vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2025

In light of the charge being framed, the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13578/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Parekh v. CBI, reported in (2008) 10 SCC, become relevant-- particularly those in paragraphs 18 and 19, which state as follows;
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N S Desai - Full Document

Dharambir Khattar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 May, 2009

42.3 The above position has been reiterated in several judgments including Indu Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 CriLJ 951, Bharat Parikh v. CBI (2008) 10 SCC 109, Hem Chand v. State of Jharkhand (2008) 5 SCC 113, State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan (2004) 1 SCC 525, Superintendent And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274.
Delhi High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 110 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Nitin Tiwari And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 12 January, 2024

26. Similarly in the case of Bharat Parikh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another 2008 (10) SCC 109, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that once the charge has been framed, an accused pleads not guilty then Magistrate is required to proceed with the trial to its logical end and he has no power to discharge the accused. He can either convict or acquit the accused. Paragraph no.17 of the above judgement is being quoted as below:
Allahabad High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shiv Shankar Soni vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 November, 2023

16. Having noted the law regarding exercise of jurisdiction under Section 227 Cr.P.C., this Court is further required to examine as to whether after charges have been framed the issue relating to discharge of an accused can be considered by court or not. Aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra and stands concluded by the judgement of Supreme Court in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharastra and others reported in (1979) 2 SCC 179, paragraph 28, which has been followed in Bharat Parikh Vs. C.B.I. and another reported in (2008) 10 SCC 109, paragraph 16, State through C.B.I. New Delhi Vs. Jitendra Kumar Singh reported in (2014) 11 SCC, 724, paragraph 40, Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 3 SCC, 92, paragraph 31.
Allahabad High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Xaviour Raj vs The State Through on 21 November, 2025

14. As laid down in the case of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra and Others8 and reaffirmed in Bharat Parikh v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another9 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, once the trial has commenced and charges are framed, the Code does not contemplate a fresh power of discharge. The proper course would be to seek relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, not by way of revision. In the present case, the trials have progressed substantially, with more than a dozen witnesses examined in each. Interference at this stage would amount to truncating a nearly-completed trial. 8 (1979) SCC (Cri) 405 9 (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 609 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 06:44:54 pm ) CRL RC(MD)Nos.18 to 20 of 2023
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Dinesh Kumar on 13 September, 2013

It is well settled that at the preliminary stage of trial i.e the framing of charge, the court is not required to make the roving enquiry and the charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion. At this stage the court is required to see only the prima facie material and the defence proposed to be led by the accused persons cannot be looked into at this stage. It has been held in Bharat Parikh Vs. CBI and Anr., [2008] INSC 1109 (14 July 2008) by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :­ "at the stage of framing charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible and a mini trial cannot be conducted at such stage.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next