Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing D.Simpson vs S.T.Perumal on 2 April, 2014

R. Gurusamy vs R. Govindasamy on 21 February, 2020

In view of the aforesaid decisions, with great respect, I am entertaining doubt about the correctness of the decisions in D.Simpson and Others Vs. S.T. Perumal and Others (cited supra); R. Sivakala Vs. D. Sethuram, (cited supra) and V. Deivanayagam Vs. Saravanan (cited supra); Therefore, for getting authoritative pronouncement on this point, the matter has to be referred to a Division Bench.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P Rajamanickam - Full Document

P.Thomas vs P.Magudapathy on 25 July, 2014

5.In the second case reported in (2014) 2 MLJ (Crl) 654 (D.Simpson v. S.T.Perumal), the learned brother judge of this Court, having found that the parties settled the dispute and the complainant compounded the offence and it is a subsequent change in circumstance, is pleased to hold that extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked in view of the changed circumstances and allowed the petition on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The learned brother judge in his decision, referred to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one among which is the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 (B.S.Joshi v. state of Haryana) wherein the Hon'ble Apex court is of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. These observations were made, while considering the question of quashing an FIR and the learned brother Judge also considered the question of quashing a sentence, which has become final, when the offence is legally compounded.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - K B Vasuki - Full Document

T. Jitendra vs V. Gangadaran on 9 December, 2019

In the second case reported in (2014) 2 MLJ (Crl) 654 (D.Simpson v. S.T. Perumal), the learned brother Judge of this Court, having found that the parties settled the dispute and the complainant compounded the offence and it is a subsequent change in circumstance, is pleased to hold that extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code can be inovked in view of the changed circumstances 6/10 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL. OP. No. 28027 of 2019 and allowed the petition on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Omprakash Chauhan S/O Shri Jagan Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 October, 2024

10. Learned Counsel had placed reliance upon qua Section 138 and 147 of the Act and Section 320 of Cr.P.C, the dictum encapsulated in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663, Gian Singh VS. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 30 and judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court titled as D. Simpson Vs. S. T. Perumal reported in 2014 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 161 (Mad.).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Jain - Full Document
1