Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1491 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004

Rajender Pahwa vs Hi Tech Carbon on 6 May, 2008

On behalf of the non applicant/respondent, it is stated that the order of the trial court calls for no interference and it is a reasoned order and ld. Trial Court 66 has correctly by applying the ratio of the law laid down in the cases of Adalat Parsad Vs. Rooplal Jindal & Others (2004) 7 SCC 338 and Subramanian Seturaman Vs. State of Maharashtra 2004 Cr. L.J 4609 had held that the trial court cannot recall its summoning order being an interlocutory order and neither is the accused entitled to a discharge in a summons case.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reserved On: 09.01.2026 vs Of on 23 February, 2026

12. The aforesaid law laid down in Adalat Prasad case [Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1927] has been followed and reiterated by this Court in its subsequent decisions in Bholu Ram case [Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab, (2008) 9 SCC 140 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 710], Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 13 SCC 324: 2005 SCC (Cri) 242], N.K. Sharma v. Abhimanyu [(2005) 13 SCC 213 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 135] and Everest Advertising (P) Ltd. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2007) 5 SCC 54 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 444].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uid No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc. vs State & Another 1 Of 15 on 30 March, 2017

19. In view of the above observations, I am of the considered view that order dated 12.12.2014 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adalata Prasad Vs Rooplal Jindal & Others. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has reviewed its own order without any fresh material on record. Ld. UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 14 of 15 Metropolitan Magistrate has proceeded to summon the accused persons mentioned in column no. 12 of the charge sheet without adducing any evidence or material or mentioning the reasons of changing her opinion. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has fails to mention on which ground it had taken a contrary view to the police report. Accordingly, the order dated 12.12.2014 is set aside. The summoning order of accused persons namely (1) Govind Ram Chopra, (2) Rajiv Chopra, (3) Priyanka, (4) Manju Bajaj @ Yogita and (5) Rajiv Bajaj are set aside.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pepsico India Holding Pvt.Ltd vs Ajayakumar.S. The Foor Inspector on 30 November, 2006

3. The learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram Shri Nandakumara Menon fairly submits that in the light of the report of the Central Food Laboratory, it is not open to the respondent now to canvass that the article is adulterated. The proceedings against the petitioner must, in these circumstances, come to an end. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can and ought to be invoked as explained in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004 (7) SCC 338).
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - R Basant - Full Document

Suresh Goyal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 7 March, 2015

15. Another contention of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned order is an interlocutory order. Ld. Counsel has relied upon case law 1984 CRI.L.J. 1680 wherein it has been held that 'Criminal Procedure Code, (2 of 1974), S.397 - Interlocutory order in revision - Order against which revision filed already executed - Question of suspending such order does not arise'. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel that the order under challenge has been executed and it cannot be reversed. He also relied upon case law Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal & ors. In this respect.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naresh Kumar Arora vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 January, 2013

In Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Ors 113 (2004) Delhi Law Times 356 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:­ "15. It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any litigation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention or provision of Sections 200 and 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking Section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence, in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate Criminal Courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Code."
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next