Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 194 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna & Anr vs Peddi Ravindra Babu & Anr on 25 March, 2009

Priyadharshini vs The Inspector Of Police on 2 December, 2022

50.In the light of the reported rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (I) CTC 300, in Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna and another Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu and another reported in (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 203, in Rekha Jain Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 2268, in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K.Narayana Rao reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 512, in In Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (I) CTC 300 and in Archana Rana Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 751, the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the reliance placed by him in Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and others reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 317, the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the second Respondent/defacto complainant in Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna and another Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu and another reported in (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 203 and on perusal of the same, it is found that the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the second Respondent/defacto complainant cannot at all be accepted, as the defacto complainant had given an omnibus allegation against the Petitioners herein, who have no role regarding administration of the Teddy Exports and Teddy Trust.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

Priyadharshini vs The Inspector Of Police on 2 December, 2022

50.In the light of the reported rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (I) CTC 300, in Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna and another Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu and another reported in (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 203, in Rekha Jain Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in AIR 33/37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13829 of 2022 2022 Supreme Court 2268, in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K.Narayana Rao reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 512, in In Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (I) CTC 300 and in Archana Rana Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 751, the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the reliance placed by him in Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and others reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 317, the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the second Respondent/defacto complainant in Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna and another Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu and another reported in (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 203 and on perusal of the same, it is found that the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the second Respondent/defacto complainant cannot at all be accepted, as the defacto complainant had given an omnibus allegation against the Petitioners herein, who have no role regarding administration of the Teddy Exports and Teddy Trust.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

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

V.Shanmugam vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 21 July, 2017

18. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegations in the FIR do not make out a case under Section 420 IPC. The learned senior counsel relying upon the judgment reported in 2009 (11) SCC 203 (Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu), contended that the ingredients in the FIR do not satisfy the requirements of section 420 IPC. Also, in an offence booked under the Gaming Act by a police officer, Section 420 cannot be invoked. Further, Section 420 is compoundable. Hence, the FIR is vague and is not launched by any aggrieved party. Apart from that, neither the names of the aggrieved party nor the amount involved is mentioned. The section has been added to make the offence non-bailable and to harass the petitioner with ulterior motives.
Madras High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - R Mahadevan - 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

V.Shanmugam vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 21 July, 2017

18. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegations in the FIR do not make out a case under Section 420 IPC. The learned senior counsel relying upon the judgment reported in 2009 (11) SCC 203 (Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu), contended that the ingredients in the FIR do not satisfy the requirements of section 420 IPC. Also, in an offence booked under the Gaming Act by a police officer, Section 420 cannot be invoked. Further, Section 420 is compoundable. Hence, the FIR is vague and is not launched by any aggrieved party. Apart from that, neither the names of the aggrieved party nor the amount involved is mentioned. The section has been added to make the offence non-bailable and to harass the petitioner with ulterior motives.
Madras High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Suresh Chand vs The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 4 August, 2014

In Chundura Siva Ram Krishna & Anr. Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu & Anr. 2009 (4) Crl. Court Cases 565 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that every breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of a mental act to fraudulent misappropriation. It was further held that an act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person wronged may seek his redress for damages in a civil court but a breach of trust with mens rea gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vidhyadharan Thampi vs The State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2011

5. It is based on the above observations learned counsel for second respondent contended that it is not justifiable for this Court to interfere in the matter in the light of the allegations made in Annexure-A, complaint and which according to the learned counsel was found correct in the investigation as revealed by Annexure-B, final report. But, in Shunduru Siva Ram Krishna Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu (supra) it has also been held that it is within the power of High Court to consider the materials on record to find whether going for trial would be a wasteful exercise and if so, interfere under Sec.482 of the Code.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Ashutosh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2017

Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234]; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892]; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059]; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513]; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703]; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400 : AIR 1998 SC 128]; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 497]; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa [(1995) 4 SCC 41 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 634]; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 : AIR 2000 SC 1869]; 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 : AIR 1991 SC 1260]; 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]).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next