Anil Kumar & Ors vs M.K Aiyappa & Anr on 1 October, 2013
In the case of Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10
SCC 705, it was held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr on 13 September, 2012
In the judgment titled as 'Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh
Chander', Crl. Appeal No. 1407 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.1516 of 2010) decided on 13.09.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India has observed that :-
New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Krishna Kumar Pandey on 6 December, 2019
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in 'New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey', Crl. Appeal No.1852 of 2019
decided on 06.12.2019, made the following observations :
Taron Mohan vs State & Anr on 25 January, 2021
In this regard, it would also be apt to quote another
judgment of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr, Criminal Rev. Petition
646/2018, decided on 25.01.2021, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court
has observed as under:-
Brinda Karat & Anr. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Its ... on 13 June, 2022
15. The aforementioned judgment (Brinda Karat) squarely
applies to the present case at hand and it is a settled position of law that
for the purpose of ordering an investigation U/s 156(3) Cr.PC or for
taking cognizance of the alleged offences, Ld. Trial Court is required to
take cognizance of the facts before it, which is not permissible, without
there being a valid sanction as required U/s 196 Cr.PC. As per the ratio
of the judgment Brinda Karat (Supra), sanction U/s 196 Cr.PC is also
Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 9 of 11
required at the stage of exercising power U/s 156(3) Cr.PC i.e. for
directing investigation qua the offences mentioned in section 196 of the
Code.
Satya Prakash Gautam vs State Of Raj &Anr on 28 May, 2010
8. Perusal of the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 vide which
Ld. MM dismissed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and the complaint
U/s 200 Cr.PC in the complaint case titled as 'Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam
Vs. State & Anr.' filed by the present revisionist against the respondent
reveals that Ld. MM has dismissed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and
the complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC, while making the following observations :-
1