Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)
Alok Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 23 April, 2026 cites

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

It is appropriate to say that the present case squarely falls within the guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947. Therefore, continuation of such criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Mahmood Ali vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2023

"19. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. [(2023) 15 SCC 488] on the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482 CrPC. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026 10/14 Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda vs The State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2023

"11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of "cruelty" under section 498A IPC, as recently observed in the case of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her second Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026 12/14 substantiate the purported demand for dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family and the investigative agencies in their own prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

Rajesh Chaddha vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 March, 2019

"11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of "cruelty" under section 498A IPC, as recently observed in the case of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her second Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026 12/14 substantiate the purported demand for dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family and the investigative agencies in their own prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Rastogi - Full Document
1