Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Master M vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 April, 2026 cites

Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004

28. A preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of the petition has been pressed. It is contended that the proceedings that led to the framing of Notice were admittedly based on the procedure prescribed for trial of summons cases by Magistrates under Chapter XX of the CrPC and it is well-settled that no detailed arguments could be led at the stage of notice, which was considered to be a formal process and there is no scope for an order akin to discharge at the stage when notice was framed against the accused under Section 251 of the CrPC. Reliance is placed upon Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2004) 13 SCC 324.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 266 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978

37. Though the present case arises at the stage of Section 251 CrPC (summons case) the principles governing framing of charge can be relied upon to understand the contours of a "prima facie case", albeit with greater circumspection, since Section 251 does not contemplate discharge in the manner provided for in warrant cases. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal : (1979) 3 SCC 4, dealt with the scope of enquiry a judge is required to make with regard to the question of framing of charges. Inter alia, the following principles were laid down by the Court:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1736 - S M Ali - Full Document
1