Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.29 seconds)
Smt Shajjia Sultana And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep,.Pp And ... on 27 June, 2018 cites

Shivjee Singh vs Nagendra Tiwary & Ors on 6 July, 2010

In "Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary" (referred supra) the facts are different. In the said judgment, in a case to be tried by the Sessions Court, a private complaint was filed and the Magistrate took cognizance and failed to record evidence of other witnesses produced before the Court and issued process for securing the presence of the accused to comply with the requirement under Section 207 and 209 of Cr.P.C. The question in the said judgment was that non compliance of Section 200 (2) of Cr.P.C. is fatal. But the Apex Court after elaborate consideration of various provisions of Cr.P.C. adverting to the law laid down by the Apex Court in long line of decisions concluded that it is not fatal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 145 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

M.N.Ojha & Ors vs Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr on 21 August, 2009

In "M.N.Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav28" the Apex Court held that "it is well settled and needs no restatement that the saving of inherent power of the High Court in criminal matters is intended to achieve a salutary public purpose "which is that a 27 1998 (5) SCC 749 28 2009 (9) SCC 682 MSM,J Crl.P_15306_2016 28 court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. If such power is not conceded, it may even lead to injustice".
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 611 - B S Reddy - Full Document

M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors on 4 November, 1997

In "Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate27" the Supreme Court held that "Summoning of an accused in criminal cases is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 3106 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Goel Etc vs U.P.State Industrial Dev.Corpn.Ltd.& ... on 8 July, 2010

In "Rakesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh20" the Apex Court discussed about the power of Magistrate to take cognizance after accepting negative final police report and held that Magistrate by accepting final report under Section 173 did not become functus officio and had power to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) on the basis of protest petition filed by complainant/first informant 20 (2014) 13 SCC 133 MSM,J Crl.P_15306_2016 14 and proceed under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. The law is very clear that even if the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. is accepted, still the Magistrate can take cognizance on the basis of protest petition by following necessary procedure. But in the present facts of the case, the Magistrate did not accept the final report filed by the police.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 173 - A Alam - Full Document

India Carat Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 15 February, 1989

The word 'cognizance' is not defined anywhere, but it is nothing but taking detailed notice of the offence with a view to initiate proceedings with respect to such offence said to have been committed by someone. While taking cognizance, the Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise of his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act under Section 200 or MSM,J Crl.P_15306_2016 19 Section 202 also (vide M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and another21).
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 281 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Noorul Huda Maqbool Ahmed vs Ram Deo Tyagi And Others on 4 July, 2011

Therefore, to constitute offence punishable under Section 448 of I.P.C., the prosecution has to prima facie establish that there was criminal trespass and house trespass as defined under Section 441 and 442 of I.P.C. A trespass becomes a criminal trespass if it is with an intention to annoy or to do something MSM,J Crl.P_15306_2016 22 illegal as held by the Apex Court in "Noorul Huda Maqbool Ahmed v. Ram Deo Tyagi22"
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 9 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document
1   2 Next