Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 218 (1.28 seconds)
Documents citing Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 July, 2019

Amit Kumar Kejriwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 November, 2022

Thus, it is not a cognizance order passed on the earlier investigation of the police, thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to taking of the cognizance based on the police report is not accepted by the Court. The ratio decided in the case of "Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, through the Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Another" (supra), as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in dispute. The learned court has chosen the fourth option of receiving the protest petition and has proceeded to act under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The right of the complainant of filing regular complaint is not taken away as has been considered in that judgment at paragraph no.24 of the said judgment which is quote below :
Jharkhand High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Umesh Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 May, 2024

In the opinion of the Court, the revisional court has committed manifest error in examining the order dated 05.05.2022 which has been passed in the light of observations made by the Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari (supra), whereas learned Magistrate has clearly mentioned that the protest petition filed by the complainant raising objection against the final report after notices issued to him, the complainant could not mention any infirmity or illegality in the investigation nor has showed any basis, ground or specific point to support any such evidence in his favour, which might satisfy summoning of the accused or rejection of the final report.
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - M R Chauhan - Full Document

Shaik Mohammed Shabuddin, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 November, 2022

16. There is also an alternative view that protest petitions, which do not meet the requirements of a complaint under 14 Section 200 of Cr.P.C, can still be considered and orders could be passed on that basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs State of Uttar Pradesh had noticed this alternative view, in paragraphs 36 and 43 of the said Judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also considered the manner in which the protest petition of a complainant is to be dealt with, in the following passage:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

Sri H D Kumarswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 9 October, 2020

21. The decision relied on by learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Home Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Another, (2019) 8 SCC 27 does not depart from the principles laid down in the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even in this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that mere fact that the magistrate had earlier ordered an investigation under Section 156 (3) and received a report under Section 173 will not have the effect of total effacement of the complaint and therefore the Magistrate will not be barred from proceeding under Sections 200, 203 and 204. It is held in this decision that 1) a Magistrate who on receipt of a complaint, orders an investigation under Section 156(3) and receives a police report under Section 173(1), may, thereafter, do one of three things: (a) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action; (b) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; this he may do without 23 being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report; (c) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be."
Karnataka High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - J M Cunha - Full Document

Chranjeet Chanderpal vs Dharini Narendra Nagda And Ors on 8 January, 2020

28. Even the Judgment in the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari (supra) would not assist Mr. Chanderpal for the simple reason that aware as we are of the difference in the language of the clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 190 of the Cr.P.C., it would be apparent from a reading thereof that cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate on a complaint or as set out in clause (b) on the report of the police. In the present case, the Trial Court has invoked clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. after reports of the investigations were Page 28 of 30 suresh 901-WP-4758.2019.doc placed before it. In these circumstances, neither the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. has been disobeyed in this case nor is there any case of the trial Court failing to apply its independent mind. In fact, it applied its independent mind but disagreed with the contents of the closure reports. It has assigned independent reasons for the same. The orders of the Trial Court disagreeing with the reports have been challenged on more than one occasion but the petitioner was unsuccessful. In these circumstances, even this Judgment is of no assistance to the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next