Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.91 seconds)
Dipak Mishra vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 February, 2025 cites

Sheonandan Paswan vs State Of Bihar & Others on 16 December, 1982

84. Political vendetta in the incident or in the lodgement of the criminal case is of no consequence when, the criminal case by itself has substance. The present criminal cases involve multiple murders. It has been accepted by the State that, some persons allegedly exercised a right of private defence. As has been noted above, whether or not, private defence was available to the accused is an issue which is required to be decided at the trial of the criminal cases. Criminal prosecution in all the criminal cases is otherwise justifiable and is based on adequate evidence. Police had filed charge sheets in the criminal cases. As has been noted in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) that, even if political vendetta for initiation of a criminal prosecution is proved, then also such criminal prosecution does not become vitiated on the ground of mala fide or political vendetta, so long, the criminal case is based upon some evidence to put up the accused on trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 227 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Bairam Muralidhar vs State Of A.P on 31 July, 2014

75. While considering the respective roles of the public prosecutor and the Court dealing with an application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Bairam Muralidhar (supra) has held that, it is the obligation of the Public Prosecutor to state what material he considered and to set it out in brief in the application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has also held that, the Court considering such an application is required to give an informed consent. It is obligatory on the part of the Court to satisfy itself that from the materials it can be reasonably held that the withdrawal of the prosecution could serve the public interest. It is not within the domain of the Court to weigh the materials. However, it is necessary on the part of the Court to see whether the grant of consent would thwart or stifle the course of law or cause manifest injustice. The Court while giving consent under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code is required to exercise judicial discretion, which is not to be exercised in a mechanical manner. The public prosecutor cannot act like the post office on behalf of the State government. He is required to act in good faith, peruse the materials on record and form an independent opinion that the withdrawal of the case would really subserve the public interest at large. An order of the government on the public prosecutor in this regard is not binding. He cannot remain oblivious of his lawful 33 obligations under the Code. He is required to constantly remember his duty to the Court as well as his duty to the collective.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 51 - D Misra - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar Jain Etc vs State Through Special Police ... on 2 May, 1980

76. Rajender Kumar Jain (supra) has held that, under the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code, prosecution of an offender for serious offence is primarily the responsibility of the executive. The withdrawal from the prosecution is an executive function of the public prosecutor. The discretion to withdraw from the prosecution is solely that of the public prosecutor and so he cannot surrender the discretion to someone else. Though the government can give suggestion, advice or guidance in such matters involving public policy but none can compel him in this regard. It has observed that, withdrawal from prosecution and political reasons, if otherwise proper, is valid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 85 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1