Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 398 (2.66 seconds)
Documents citing Kurukshetra University And Anr. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 22 March, 1977

Rajeev Alias Raji And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 January, 2021

15. We have referred to the said decisions only to stress upon the issue, how the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in a proceeding relating to quashment of FIR can be justified. We repeat even at the cost of repetition that the said power has to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The surprise that was expressed almost four decades ago in Kurukshetra University case [Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] compels us to observe that we are also surprised by the impugned order."
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Digvijay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2020

It appears from the aforesaid paras that the Hon'ble Apex Court referred the above mentioned cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 = 1960 Cri.L.J. 1239, Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi , [1976] 3 SCC 736 = 1976 SCC (Cri) 507 , State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, [1977] 2 SCC 699 , Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra, [1977] 4 SCC 551, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, [1988] 1 SCC 692 ,Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary,[1992] 4 SCC 305 , Raghubir Sharan (Dr.) v. State of Bihar,AIR 1964 SC 1 Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1964 AC 1254, Kurukshetra University and Another v. State of Haryana and Another, [1977] 4 SCC 451, State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, G. Sagar Suri & Another v. State of UP ,(2000) 2 SCC 636, State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 , Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque ,(2005) 1 SCC 122 , Devendra and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh ,(2009) 7 SCC 495 State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh ,(2010) 11 SCC 226.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - B K Shrivastava - Full Document

Iserveu Technologies Pvt Ltd vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 July, 2021

(15). We have referred to the said decisions only to stress upon the issue, how the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in a proceeding relating to quashment of FIR can be justified. We repeat even at the cost of repetition that the said power has to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The surprise that was expressed almost four decades ago in Kurukshetra University case [Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] compels us to observe that we are also surprised by the impugned order."
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Palakollu Rajeshwara Rao 8 Ors vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By P.P. Another on 6 July, 2018

But there is a little conflict between the two judgments including Kurukshetra University v. State Of Haryana (referred supra), State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (referred supra) and the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (referred supra) and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (referred supra), but State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal's judgment is a leading judgment on the powers of the High Court to quash the proceedings. As per guideline No.4, if the allegations in the complaint accepting on its face value do not constitute any offence, the Court can execute power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
Telangana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maddirala Jeevan Rahul, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 September, 2020

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in "State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo" and "Kurukshetra University v. State Of Haryana" (referred supra) when the investigation is at fetus stage, this Court cannot interfere with the process of investigation and quash the proceedings by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Kapil Yadav @ Kapil Dev Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 18 April, 2022

15. We have referred to the said decisions only to stress upon the issue, how the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11087 of 2021 dt.18-04-2022 14/22 exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in a proceeding relating to quashment of FIR can be justified. We repeat even at the cost of repetition that the said power has to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The surprise that was expressed almost four decades ago in Kurukshetra University case [Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] compels us to observe that we are also surprised by the impugned order."
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 November, 2020

15. We have referred to the said decisions only to stress upon the issue, how the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in a proceeding relating to quashment of FIR can be justified. We repeat even at the cost of repetition that the said power has to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The surprise that was expressed almost four decades ago in Kurukshetra University case [Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] compels us to observe that we are also surprised by the impugned order.‖ 43 Thereafter, this Court noted that ―the High Court has not referred to allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in the investigation‖. While on the one hand, the High Court declined in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the proceedings, it nonetheless directed the police not to arrest the appellants during the pendency of the investigation. It was in this context that this 31 PART H Court observed that the High Court had, while dismissing the applications under Section 482, passed orders that if the accused surrenders before the trial Magistrate, he shall be admitted to bail on such terms and conditions as it was deemed fit and appropriate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 529 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next