Shreya Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 August, 2024
In view of the law laid down by the Three Judge Bench in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (supra), we are inclined to accept the present appeal."
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1668 (2.91 seconds)Documents citing
State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004
Sh. Vishwa Vibhuti vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 6 July, 2012
" From the decisions referred to in the same paragraph
and the decisions already referred to above there was no
bar to consider the material on record in the case on hand,
which was collected during the course of investigation and
produced before the court and particularly in view of the
directions given earlier by the High Court."
Mohit Jain vs State on 1 September, 2023
15. This Court has gone through all the judgments relied upon
by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and even in one of the
judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel of this
petitioner/accused (which was passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court) in the case titled Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin & Anr.
their the Lordship had quoted the said judgment of State of
Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi.
Shiv Narain Singh Sidhu vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 21 March, 2014
26. Mr.Sharma, counsel for the CBI has argued that at the stage of framing of
charge court is not required to give detailed reasons and the material
placed on record by the petitioner cannot be looked into, in view of the
case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1
SCC 568. Strong reliance is placed on the statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Mr.Ravinder Singh Sandhu and Mr.Mohan Lal.
Suresh Chandra Sahu @ Suresh vs State Of Odisha And Another Opposite ... on 7 November, 2025
25. As is clear from the aforesaid discussion, it is a fairly well-
established principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge the court
has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The trial court/ magistrate is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not
for convicting the accused. A roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible at
the stage of framing of charge, and at the stage of considering the discharge
application. In doing so, the trial court can only look at the „record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith‟. As to what constitutes the
„record of the case and the documents submitted therewith‟, the position of
law regarding the same has been clarified by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568,
Page 20 of 35
which has thereafter been followed in a catena of decisions (see State of
Rajasthan v. Swarn Singh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5537; State v.
Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1215;
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 476;
State of M.P. v. Rakesh Mishra, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 8; M.E.
Shivalingamurthy (supra) and other similar pronouncements).
Uday Sarup vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2024
45. It is thus evident that the appropriate stage for filing an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and for summoning for documents is the one as provided in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (Supra).
M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010
22. It is, no doubt, true that this Court will have to shut its eyes on
the documents produced by the respondents 2 and 3. However, even a perusal of
the said documents would show that how much the Investigating Officer is
prejudiced and biased against the respondents 2 and 3. Most of the documents
such as the complaint given by the second respondent, its receipt, injuries
noticed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the jail authorities at the time
of remand, accident registers are not new documents, but more of public
records. The said documents are not disputed and in fact, they must have been
produced by the prosecution itself. An Investigating Officer carries himself
with lot of responsibilities and he supposed to act fairly being a public
servant. There is absolutely no reason as to why he has suppressed the earlier
complaint and registered the subsequent complaint showing as if the respondents
2 and 3 were arrested on the next day morning wherein the complaint had been
given on the previous day itself. Even in the judgment in State of Orissa v.
Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 568], the Honourable Apex
Court has considered the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The Honourable Apex Court has observed as follows:
Gurmeet Ram Rahim vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 28 May, 2018
In judgment of Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), the
documents/ evidence can be ordered to be produced in case the same is
necessary or desirable. The requirement is necessity and desirability. Both
things are necessary to be seen with reference to the stage of the case when
prayer for asking such evidence/material has been made. It is not disputed
that defence of the accused is not relevant at this stage. Such necessity and
desirability would arise at the stage when the record produce in terms of
Section 173 Cr.P.C. is there. At the time of invoking of provisions of
Section 91 Cr.P.C., the Court is to be satisfied that the material available
11 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2018 22:41:37 :::
CRM-M No.22639 of 2018 -12-
with the investigator which is not part of charge-sheet is having bearing on
the issue of framing of charge. In the application moved by the petitioner,
not only the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. have been invoked but also
of Section 91 Cr.P.C. The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. provides for
supply of documents to the accused.
Reetu Setia vs State Of Punjab on 31 March, 2016
Thus we have to reconcile
paragraphs 16 and 23 of the decision in State of Orissa vs.
Debendra Nath Padhi (supra).
Sunil Kumar Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 18 May, 2017
10. It will also be worthwhile to reproduce a few
excerpts from a decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 Supreme
Court 359, herein below: