Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)
Amit Kumar @ Ameet Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 January, 2024 cites

Mahmood Ali And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 July, 2022

There is allegation of aggression by Pradhans and interfering in the official duty and the charge sheet is already there and in view of that, even the Court is trying to read the things in between the lines, is not finding the case of interference and in view of that, the judgment relied by Mr. Gadodia, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.3385 of 2013 in Mahmood Ali and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra) is not helping the petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.3385 of 2013. The other cases relied by Mr. Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.3385 of 2013 where the facts are different and in view of that, the Court has interfered in those judgments which are also not helping the petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.3385 of 2013. The law is well settled regarding interference by the High Court with the investigation of a case. The extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be exercised by the High Court either to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power of quashing a criminal proceeding can be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 17 - A K Mishra - Full Document

Matajog Dobey vs H. C. Bhari(With Connected Appeal) on 31 October, 1955

9. Coming to the second question, it is now well settled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari [AIR 1956 SC 44 : (1955) 2 SCR 925] that in the matter of grant of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused must have something to do, or must be related in some manner, with the discharge of official duty. In other words, there must be a reasonable 17 connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable claim, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty. In the said case it had been further held that where a power is conferred or a duty imposed by statute or otherwise, and there is nothing said expressly inhibiting the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty by any limitations or restrictions, it is reasonable to hold that it carries with it the power of doing all such acts or employing such means as are reasonably necessary for such execution, because it is a rule that when the law commands a thing to be done, it authorises the performance of whatever may be necessary for executing its command.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 666 - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990

14. When the factual background as noted above is considered on the touchstone of legal principles set out above the inevitable conclusion is that certainly mala fides were involved apart from the applicability of Section 197 of the Code. It is no doubt true that at the threshold interference by exercise of Section 482 of the Code has to be in rare cases. The present case appears to be of that nature and falls under Category (7) indicated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . The continuance of the proceedings by the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Som Mittal vs Govt. Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2008

Thus, the specific allegations were made in the F.I.R and 24 prima facie case is made out against the accused persons, the High Court is restricted to pass such order of quashing and there are lines of judgment on these points and the reference of certain judgments will suffice; in the case of State of Bihar and Another v. Md. Khalique and Another, (2002) 1 SCC 652; in the case of Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 753 and further in the case of Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala and Others, (1978) 4 SCC 58. It is necessary to protect the public servants in discharge of their official duties. In the facts and circumstances of the each case, protection of public servants functioning in discharge of their official duties and protection of private citizens have to be balanced by finding out as to what extent and how far is a public servant working in discharge of his duties or purported discharge of his duties, and whether the public servant has exceeded his limit. What has been narrated hereinabove, it is a crystal case of discharging the official duty on behalf of the public servant. It is the quality of the act which is important and protection by these sections is available if the act falls within the range of official duty. There cannot be universal rule to determine whether there is reasonable connection between the act done and official duty nor is possible to lay down any such rule. Admittedly, the government officers have acted pursuant to the complaint made by Anuradha Sharma and other orders on record. Section 147 Cr.P.C. further suggest that in view of law and order situation they have acted. In the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Rajak which was ignored by the order of this Court, he has stated that he has received Memo No.2672 dated 03.12.2013, however in the affidavit he has turned down the said statement, which suggest that he was being guided by the Pradhans.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 308 - H K Sema - Full Document
1