Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 290 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Shakson Belthissor vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009

Shiva Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024

2005 SCC (Cri) 283, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala, (2009) 14 SCC 466 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1412, V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 234 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 356, Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu, (2009) 11 SCC 203 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1297, Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 82, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 192, Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar, (2001) 2 SCC 17 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 275, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19, Savita v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 12 SCC 338 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 571 and S.M. Datta v. State of 31 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 Gujarat, (2001) 7 SCC 659 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1361 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1201.] 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Smt Laxmi Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024

2005 SCC (Cri) 283, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala, (2009) 14 SCC 466 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1412, V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 234 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 356, Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu, (2009) 11 SCC 203 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1297, Sheonandan 27 M.Cr.C. No. 56817/2023 Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 82, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 192, Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar, (2001) 2 SCC 17 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 275, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19, Savita v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 12 SCC 338 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 571 and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 7 SCC 659 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1361 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1201.] 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Rajesh Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2023

H.S. Chowdhary; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala;
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - V K Shukla - Full Document

Vinay Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2024

27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. [Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar GuhaMadhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P.; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of 14 W.P. No.30152/2023 Bihar; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; Savita v. State of Rajasthan and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat.] 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Prahlad Gothiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2024

[Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar GuhaMadhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful 12 Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P.; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; Savita v. State of Rajasthan and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat.] 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Sandeep Oberai And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 15 March, 2017

Debendra Nath Pandhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, Onkar Nath 3 Mishra and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 561, Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 466, and Rumi Dhar (Smt.) v. State of West Bengal and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 364, that while considering an application for discharge the Court can examine the evidence on record and discharge the accused persons if there is no possibility of the accused being found guilty on the basis of such evidence specially in cases where the accused produces unimpeachable evidence in support of his defence. It was also contended that while examining whether the Court should or should not discharge the accused, it must be remembered, that Section 498-A of the IPC is a much abused provision and that exaggerated versions of small incidents are often resented to falsely implicate, harass and humiliate the husband and his relatives. Applying the principles set out in the above decisions the appellants were, according to Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned counsel appearing for them, entitled to a discharge not only because there was an inordinate delay in the filing of the complaint by respondent No.1 but also because the statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the witnesses who were either planted or merely chance witnesses were contradictory in nature. It was argued that two Investigating Officers having investigated the matter and found the allegations to be false, there was no reason for the Court to believe the story set up by the wife who had suffered a decree for divorce in regard to which she had written to the Army Authorities a letter dated 2nd October, 2006 stating that she was not pursuing the matter in any Court. Appellant No.3-Naveen Ahlawat having got re- married on 30th October, 2006 the incident referred in the complaint was a fabrication which aspect the Courts below had failed to consider thus failing to 4 protect the appellants against harassment and the ignominy of a criminal trial.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - U C Dhyani - Full Document

Sunil Kumar Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 18 May, 2017

"8. On behalf of the appellant it was argued on the authority of the decisions of this Court in Preeti Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4, Sajjan Kumar v. Central ureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368, State of 3 Orissa v. Debendra Nath Pandhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 561, Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 466, and Rumi Dhar (Smt.) v. State of West Bengal and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 364, that while considering an application for discharge the Court can examine the evidence on record and discharge the accused persons if there is no possibility of the accused being found guilty on the basis of such evidence specially in cases where the accused produces unimpeachable evidence in support of his defence. It was also contended that while examining whether the Court should or should not discharge the accused, it must be remembered, that Section 498-A of the IPC is a much abused provision and that exaggerated versions of small incidents are often resented to falsely implicate, harass and humiliate the husband and his relatives. Applying the principles set out in the above decisions the appellants were, according to Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned counsel appearing for them, entitled to a discharge not only because there was an inordinate delay in the filing of the complaint by respondent No.1 but also because the statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the witnesses who were either planted or merely chance witnesses were contradictory in nature. It was argued that two Investigating Officers having investigated the matter and found the allegations to be false, there was no reason for the Court to believe the story set up by the wife who had suffered a decree for divorce in regard to which she had written to the Army Authorities a letter dated 2nd October, 2006 stating that she was not pursuing the matter in any Court.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - U C Dhyani - Full Document

Aman Arora Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2022

[Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P.; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; Savita v. State of Rajasthan and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat.] 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 1 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Avneesh Kumar Gupta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 24 April, 2017

Debendra Nath Pandhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 561, Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 466, and Rumi Dhar (Smt.) v. State of West Bengal and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 364, that while considering an application for discharge the Court can examine the evidence on record and discharge the accused persons if there is no possibility of the accused being found guilty on the basis of such evidence specially in cases where the accused produces unimpeachable evidence in support of his defence. It was also contended that while examining whether the Court should or should not discharge the accused, it must be remembered, that Section 498-A of the IPC is a much abused provision and that exaggerated versions of small incidents are often resented to falsely implicate, harass and humiliate the husband and his relatives. Applying the principles set out in the above decisions the appellants were, according to Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned counsel appearing for them, entitled to a discharge not only because there was an inordinate delay in the filing of the complaint by respondent No.1 but also because the statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the witnesses who were either planted or merely chance witnesses were contradictory in nature. It was argued that two Investigating Officers having investigated the matter and found the allegations to be false, there was no reason for the Court to believe the story set up by the wife who had suffered a decree for divorce in regard to which she had written to the Army Authorities nd a letter dated 2 October, 2006 stating that she was not pursuing the matter in any Court. Appellant No.3- th Naveen Ahlawat having got re-married on 30 October, 2006 the incident referred in the complaint was a fabrication which aspect the Courts below had failed to 5 consider thus failing to protect the appellants against harassment and the ignominy of a criminal trial.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - U C Dhyani - Full Document

Shri Kavindra Kiyawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. Special ... on 21 September, 2020

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P.; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; Savita v. State of Rajasthan and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat.] 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 5 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next