Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 397 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu And ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Another on 30 August, 2018

Sprite Investment Private Limited & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 February, 2020

On the contrary, the Learned Counsel for the complainant/opposite parties has strongly relied on the decision of our Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1082 of 2019 of Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu & Anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr (Supra) and in the decision of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Anr (Supra) and has vigorously contented that in a proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dalbir Bhardwaj vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 21 August, 2019

14. As far as the protection under Section 86 of Indian Registration Act is concerned, the said protection would only be available in case the accused is able to prove that he acted in a bona fide manner. In the present case however, the facts prima facie suggest that it is a case of execution of sale deed by means of impersonation wherein the Sub Registrar while registering the sale deed did not even do the basic identification which he was expected to conduct or to satisfy himself. In any case such plea of having acted in a bona fide manner despite the fact that the facts point to the contrary is a matter which the petitioner may establish by way of leading evidence during the course of trial and is not a matter to be looked into at this stage. The question as to whether over-looking identification was 10 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 26-08-2019 06:51:13 ::: (11) CRM-M-48718-2018 (O&M) intentional or was due to carelessness is a matter to decided on the basis of evidence and other circumstances and no finding in this regard can be returned in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment delivered on 31.7.2019 in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal no.1082 of 2019, while reiterating the position of law as settled in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, held as follows:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - G S Gill - Full Document

Jai Prakash Rai @ Kailash Nath And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 September, 2019

12. I can take assistance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in Chilakamarthi Venkateshwarlu and another vs State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2019 SCC Online SC 948, in which the appeal was preferred against the judgment and order dated 30/08/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dismissing the Criminal Petition No. 9225 of 2018 filed by the appellant under sections 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings in PRC no. 2 of 2018 pending against the appellants in the court of Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Narsapar, West Godavari District for the offences punishable under sections 307, 323, 427, 447 and 506 (2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants and the respondent no. 2,, being the de facto complainant, were pretty close relatives and were embroiled in Partition Suit. The appellant no. 2 had also filed a criminal complaint against the de facto complainant and others under sections 120 B, 420, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the IPC. The appellants' case was that the de facto complainant had falsely implicated the appellants as a counterblast to the Criminal Complaint No. 518 of 2012 filed by the appellant no. 2. The case of the de facto complainant was that an attempt to cause injuries on the head was made, which was a vital organ, which could have resulted in causing death of the de facto complainant. The High Court found that the allegations in the complaint attracted the offences, punishable under the sections mentioned in the complaint and rejected the contention of the appellants that the complaint was lodged as a counterblast observing that the complaint of the second appellant was filed on 28/09/2012, whereas the instant complaint was filed on 21st July, 2015, that is after almost 3 years. The case of the appellants was that the appellant no. 1, who was working as lecturer at Hyderabad had been falsely implicated, therefore whether the appellant no. 1 was at Hyderabad when the alleged incident took place, or whether he was falsely implicated, was a question of fact which had to be decided in the trial by adducing evidence. Therefore it was held the High Court rightly concluded that it was open to the appellants to adduce evidence to show that the appellants and/or one of them was not present at the time of the alleged offence. It was further held that the pleanary inherent jurisdiction of the court under sections 482 Cr. P.C. may be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code; to prevent abuse of process of the court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself, that is, to make orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent the abuse of process of any court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. For the Interference under Section 482, three conditions are to be fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of a grave, and not of a trivial character; it should be palpable and clear and not doubtful and there should exist no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief. In exercising jurisdiction under sections 482 it is not permissible for the court to act as if it were a trial court. The court is only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the court can evaluate materials and documents on record, but it cannot assess the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. The High Court should not, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable or not, or whether on a reasonable appreciation of evidence the allegations are not sustainable, for this is the function of the trial Judge.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Suramma W/O Thipperudrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2019

This judgment has been referred in Criminal Appeal No.1082/2019 in the case of Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another dated 31.07.2019. The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive, the same is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself, that is, to make orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of : 13 : justice.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Dr.K.Thanappan vs The Inspector Of Police on 31 January, 2020

13. The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself, that is, to make orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Mohammad Gouse S/O Shabuddin Deshnoor vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2020

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there are allegations against the petitioners that they instigated accused No.1 to demand dowry and harass the complainant. The learned High Court Government Pleader has relied on the judgment in the case of Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No.1082/2019, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 31.7.2019, in support of his arguments.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next