Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.36 seconds)
Gurcharan Singh vs State on 1 July, 1998 cites

State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors on 3 March, 1977

4. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the celebrated case reported as State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswami and others observed that the High Court under its inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that allowing proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that ends the justice required that the proceedings ought to be quashed. In the said judgment, the Court observed that ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law. Though, justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislatures. The Court observed in the said case that the Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court also observed that lame prosecution be quashed. The relevant portion which could have vital bearing in determining and adjudicating the controversy, is reproduced as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1534 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Chiranji Lal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 21 January, 1965

In Chiranji Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, their Lordships of the Supreme Court granted permission for compounding a non-compoundable offence. While granting the permission, the Court observed that the Complainants have appeared before the Court and have stated that they have compromised the matter and have received the compensation and no rancour is now left in their hearts against the appellant. In these circumstances, the Court allowed the application and sanctioned the compounding of offence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960

In R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab , the Supreme Court had an occasion to lay down some guidelines for the High Courts for exercising its inherent powers. The Court observed that it is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. But this power can always be used for securing the ends of justice. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have been consistent in their approach that the High Courts have inherent powers to quash proceedings where allowing the proceedings to go on would be an abuse of process of law and/or where the ends of justice require the proceedings to be quashed. But as far as power of compounding a non-compoundable offence is concerned, there is conflict of opinion among the High Courts. The courts have examined this issue on various occasions and arrived at different findings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 15811 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next