Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)
Crl.Pet./74/2021 on 23 April, 2026 cites

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

Present case also does not fall under Clause (1), (3) and (5) of para No.102 of the decision in the case of Bhajan Lal(supra). Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondents, has rightly pointed out that no plausible reason has been assigned by the petitioner for quashing the aforementioned proceeding, and there appears to be substance in the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Ap Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank ... vs Ramesh Kumar Bung on 20 July, 2021

8. The law with regard to quashing of an FIR and criminal proceeding is well settled in a catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the decisions in Anukul Singh (supra); State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604; A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association vs. Ramesh Kumar Bung and Ors., reported in (2021) 9 SCC 152; Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880; and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 21 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Rajiv Thapar & Ors vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising there from) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)] 8.3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 781 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd vs Rajvir Industries Ltd. & Ors on 9 January, 2008

"11.4. Nevertheless, an exception has been recognized where the defence relies upon unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence of Page 16 of 28 sterling quality -such as documents of undisputed authenticity - which ex facie demonstrate that continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust and oppressive. This principle was recognized in Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd v. Rajvir Industries Ltd".(2018) 13 SCC 678, and followed in subsequent decisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 205 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Shanti Kumar Panda vs Shakutala Devi on 3 November, 2003

12. Though Mr. Kamar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has tried his level best to persuade this Court that in view of the pendency of the title suit before the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat and the decision of the said title suit is binding upon the criminal court in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Kumar Panda (supra), yet the said submission left this Court unimpressed, and the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case would not come into his assistance as the said case is factually distinguishable from the present case and the said proposition of law was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Notably, in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the courts usually consider possession of the disputed land by the parties to the proceeding and the title has always to be adjudicated by Civil Courts and such circumstances Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the finding of Civil Court is binding upon the parties. And that being so, it would not advance the argument of Mr. Kamar.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 100 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

K.G. Premshanker vs Inspector Of Police And Anr on 12 September, 2002

12.2. Further, whether the judgement of the Civil Court, is binding, on the Criminal Court, was dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.G. Premshanker Vs. Inspector of Police and another, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 87, wherein it has been held that the decision of the Civil Court, shall be relevant, if conditions of any of Sections 40 to 43, are satisfied. But, it cannot be said, that the same would be conclusive, except as provided in Section 41. If the judgement, order or decree of Civil Court, is relevant, as provided, under Sections 40 and 42, then Court has to decide, to what extent, it is binding, with regard to matters decided therein. It has also been held that, therefore, in each case, it has to be ascertained, whether judgment, decree or order, is relevant and if so, its effect. Further, it has been held that in the criminal case, the prosecution was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, by leading cogent and convincing independent evidence that the sale deeds dated 31.01.1989 executed by Raj Kaur were the result Page 26 of 28 of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation. On the other hand the civil case was required to be decided on the preponderance of evidence. Merely, on the basis of the Civil Court judgements, it could not be conclusively held, in the criminal trial, that the sale deeds were the result of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation. Under these circumstances, the judgement of the Civil Court cannot be said to be binding, on the Criminal Court, for the purpose of deciding the guilt of the accused, in a criminal case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 188 - Full Document
1   2 Next