Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Hardeep Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 August, 2017

Rajinder Parshad vs State Of Punjab on 6 November, 2019

It is now well settled that power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is discretionary and an extra-ordinary power which is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. Though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-01-2020 21:22:50 ::: CRR-2135-2018(O&M) -6- satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under section 319 CrPC, 1973. (See Hardeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others : 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 623; Dev Wati and others Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2019 AIR (SC) 641 and Periyasami and others Vs. S. Nallasamy : 2019(2) RCR (Criminal)
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharnidhar Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 12 January, 2018

9. This Court, however, fails to understand that when both PW-1 who is the complainant and PW-3 who is the injured witness had given categorical statements in their examination-in-chief against Smt. Chaya Devi and Smt. Rajbala and the role assigned to them is of exhortation, though not of using fire arms. (Sanjay Singh, who is the son of Smt. Chaya Devi, was asked to fire at the injured witness as it has come in the statements of the witnesses), why they have not been made an accused! Under these circumstances, there 3 was in fact no option for the court but to have exercised its power under Section 319 of CrPC by allowing the application of the prosecution as it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above seminal judgment of Hardeep Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, that the foundation of Section 319 of CrPC is the doctrine of judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur, which would mean that a Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted and it is for this reason that the Hon'ble Apex Court said in the above case that "it is the duty of the Court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial."
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Dhulia - Full Document

Somveer Alias Sombir Singh Dhangar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2019

Para-12 The High Court does not even record any satisfaction that the evidence on record as revealed by the statement of victim and her mother even makes out a prima facie case of offence against the appellants. The mere fact that Court has power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to proceed against any person who is not named in the F.I.R. or in the Charge Sheet does not mean that whenever in a statement recorded before the Court, name of any person is taken, the Court has to mechanically issue process under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Court has to consider substance of the evidence, which has come before it and as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra) has to apply the test, i.e., "more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction." Although, the High Court has not adverted to test laid down by the Constitution Bench nor has given any cogent reasons for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., but for our satisfaction, we have looked into the evidence, which has come on record before the trial court as statements of PW3 and PW4. PW3 is mother of the victim, who has clearly stated that her daughter has informed that she was abducted by appellants and Natuji, who had taken her to the Morbi in the vehicle of Labhuji. The statement of mother of the victim was an hearsay statement and could not have been relied for proceeding against the appellants. Now, coming to the statement of victim, PW4, she has only stated that Natuji, the accused had come along with his three friends, i.e. appellants and she was taken in the jeep to Morbi. She does not even alleged complicity of the appellants in the offence. Her further statement was that she was taken to Morbi in the jeep driven by Labhuji and subsequently was taken to Modasa from Morbi in the jeep of Labhuji which also could not furnish any basis to proceed against the appellants. The mere fact that the jeep, in which she was taken to Modasa, the appellants were also present cannot be treated to be any allegation of complicity of the appellants in the offence. The observations of the trial court while rejecting the application having that the application appears to be filed with malafide intention, has not even been adverted by the High Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - S K Singh - Full Document

Govind Narain vs State And Anr on 3 October, 2019

After carefully going through the order passed by the revisional court, I am of the opinion that the revisional court has rightly held that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in 2014(3) SCC 92, at the time of exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the court is required to apply the test that more than prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge, is required to be available against a person before summoning him to face trial along with other accused persons.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - V Bishnoi - Full Document

Govind Narain vs State And Ors on 3 October, 2019

After carefully going through the order passed by the revisional court, I am of the opinion that the revisional court has rightly held that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in 2014(3) SCC 92, at the time of exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the court is required to apply the test that more than prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge, is required to be available against a person before summoning him to face trial along with other accused persons.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - V Bishnoi - Full Document

Govind Narain vs State And Anr on 3 October, 2019

After carefully going through the order passed by the revisional court, I am of the opinion that the revisional court has rightly held that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in 2014(3) SCC 92, at the time of exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the court is required to apply the test that more than prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge, is required to be available against a person before summoning him to face trial along with other accused persons.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - V Bishnoi - Full Document

Shailesh Pandey And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 December, 2019

8. Now the question for consideration is whether the evidence collected during investigation could also be taken into consideration while dealing with the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Plain reading of Section 319 Cr.P.C. indicates that evidence which have to be considered while dealing with the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are the evidence collected in the course of any enquiry or trial. This proposition of law also finds support with the dictum of Constitutional Bench decision of Apex Court in Hardeep Singh case (Supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Yogesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 September, 2021

57. The basic rules of interpretation of statutes came up for consideration in Constitution Bench decision, Hardeep Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others32, in the context of examining the scope of exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and it was stated that when language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court should give effect to the same and should not go behind the express language so as to add or subtract any word. Referring to the doctrine A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum it was stated that legislature is presumed to have used words deliberately and consciously for carrying out the purpose of the statute. The observations made in this judgment in this regard are as follows:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document
1   2 3 Next