Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 901 (1.50 seconds)
Documents citing Bhushan Kumar & Anr vs State(Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 April, 2012

Badri Prasad And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 December, 2021

23. The meaning of the expressions ''cognizance' under Section 190 and ''summons' in Section 204 were considered in Bhushan Kumar and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another26 and it was stated that while issuing summons under Section 204 a reasoned order is not required. It was held that the Magistrate is not bound to give reasons for issuing an order of summons under Section 204 and the order issuing process cannot be quashed only on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. The questions which were specifically considered are as follows :-
Allahabad High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 1 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document

Arvind Kejriwal & Ors vs Amit Sibal & Anr on 16 January, 2014

In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar (supra), Krishna Kumar Variar (supra) and Maneka Gandhi (supra) and of this Court in Raujeev Taneja (supra), Urrshila Kerkar (supra) and S.K.Bhalla (supra), the Crl. M.C.5245/2013 Page 22 of 25 accused are entitled to hearing before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C in all summons cases arising out of complaints and the Magistrate has to frame the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. only upon satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. However, in the event of the learned Magistrate not finding a prima facie case against the accused, the Magistrate shall discharge/drop the proceedings against the accused.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 82 - J R Midha - Full Document

Satinder Singh vs Kuldeep Kumar Kukreti on 12 October, 2018

In the case of Bhushan Kumar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), criminal   appeal   no.   613/2012   decided   on   04.04.2012   in paragraph 17, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:­ "It is inherent in section 251 of the code that when an accused   appears   before   the   trial   Court   pursuant   to summons   issued   under   section   204   of   the   Code   in  a CR No.685/18 Page 11 of 16 summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the trial court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any offence   is   disclosed   and   if   the   answer   is   in   the affirmative, the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the   accusation   to   the   accused   and   ask   whether   he pleads   guilty   otherwise,   he   is   bound   to   discharge   the accused as per Section 239 of the Code.".
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. Karuna Karan D vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2026

In the case of BHUSHAN KUMAR supra, the Apex Court again reiterates that if cognizance is taken under Section 190 of the Code, application of judicial mind to the averments of the complaint is necessary. The Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding in the matter and not whether sufficient ground for conviction. In the case
Karnataka High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Vinit Agarwal Alias Vineet Agarwal vs Union Of India Through The National ... on 18 January, 2022

In Bhushan Kumar and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (Supra) the provision of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been considered which mandates for issuance of summons for calling upon any person before a Magistrate. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 109 - Cited by 1 - R Ranjan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next