Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)
Arun Gupta vs J.P Meena on 28 April, 2023 cites

Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004

6. Needless to say, if the trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioners, then the decision of the Apex Court's in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 will not stand in the way of trial court to drop the proceedings against petitioners and if trial court chooses to proceed against petitioners, then petitioners will have the remedy as available in the law. It is so said because dropping of proceedings at Notice stage cannot possibly be equated with recalling of summoning order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 900 - Full Document

Bhushan Kumar & Anr vs State(Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 April, 2012

In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar (supra), Krishna Kumar Variar (supra) and Maneka Gandhi (supra) and of this Court in Raujeev Taneja (supra), Urrshila Kerkar (supra) and S.K. Bhalla (supra), the accused are entitled to hearing before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. in all summons cases arising out of complaints and the Magistrate has to frame the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. only upon satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. However, in the event of the learned Magistrate not finding a prima facie case against the accused, the Magistrate shall discharge/drop the proceedings against the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 642 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1