Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Alka W/O Udhav Khaire And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 April, 2017 cites

Anil Kumar & Ors vs M.K Aiyappa & Anr on 1 October, 2013

19] As discussed above, we do not find any merit in the arguments canvassed on behalf of Shri Ghadge in regard to sustainability of allegations made in the FIR. The judicial precedent relied on by the applicants in the case of Anilkumar and others referred supra, is misplaced and not advance the case of the applicants. There were allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in view of Section 19(1)(3) of the said Act, the prosecution sanction is imperative under law. But, in the matter in hand, the allegations are relating to offences punishable under the IPC. Therefore, the observations of Honourable Supreme Court in Anil Kumar's case would not render much assistance to the applicants, as same is distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 576 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Punjab State Warehousing Corp vs Bhushan Chander & Anr on 29 June, 2016

14] In the case of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Bhushan Chander and others, reported in (2016)13 SCC 44, the Honourable Apex Court, dealt with the various judicial pronouncements relating to prosecution sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and it has been held that the prosecution sanction in terms of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, is not necessary for taking cognizance of the allegations by the Court. Extract of observations in para. 19 is reproduced hereinbelow :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 48 - D Misra - Full Document

Parkash Singh Badal And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 6 December, 2006

In Parkash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab 11it has been ruled that the offence of cheating under Section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In such cases, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of 32 (1999)5 SCC 690 33 (2004)2 SCC 349 11 (2007) 1 SCC 1 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 01:01:01 ::: {12} crapln 4878.16 f.odt the offence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 82 - Cited by 659 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Choudhury Parveen Sultana vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 January, 2009

Similar principle has been reiterated in Choudhary Parveen Sultana Vs. State of W.B10 wherein the Court referred to the authority in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava Vs. N.P. Mishra 34 and ruled thus : (Choudhary Parveen Case SCC p 402, para 12) "12. It was also observed in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava that Section 197 has been designed to facilitate effective and unhampered performance of their official duty by public servants by providing for Scrutiny into the allegations of commission of offence by them by their superior authorities and prior sanction for their prosecution was a condition precedent to the taking of cognizance of the cases against them by the courts. It was finally observed that the question whether a particular act is done by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties is substantially one of the facts to be determined in the circumstances of each case."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 96 - A Kabir - Full Document

Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava vs N. P. Misra on 20 April, 1970

Similar principle has been reiterated in Choudhary Parveen Sultana Vs. State of W.B10 wherein the Court referred to the authority in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava Vs. N.P. Mishra 34 and ruled thus : (Choudhary Parveen Case SCC p 402, para 12) "12. It was also observed in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava that Section 197 has been designed to facilitate effective and unhampered performance of their official duty by public servants by providing for Scrutiny into the allegations of commission of offence by them by their superior authorities and prior sanction for their prosecution was a condition precedent to the taking of cognizance of the cases against them by the courts. It was finally observed that the question whether a particular act is done by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties is substantially one of the facts to be determined in the circumstances of each case."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 74 - I D Dua - Full Document

Pandharinath Narrayan Patil And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 30 March, 2015

20] The learned counsel Shri Ghadge, further criticized the impugned order of the learned Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was no application of judicious mind and impugned order was passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside as same is registered pursuant to the erroneous and illegal order passed by the learned Magistrate after ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 01:01:01 ::: {16} crapln 4878.16 f.odt exercising the discretion under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In support of his submission he relied upon the judicial pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of Pandharinath Narayan Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015(2) Bom.C.R. (cri.) 358. 21] The minute scrutiny of impugned order of the learned Magistrate passed after exercising discretion under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. reflects that the arguments propounded on behalf of Shri Ghadge appears not appreciable and comprehensible one. In contrast, the impugned order adumbrates that the learned Magistrate, at the threshold had taken every care and verified the contents of the complainant as well as affidavits Exhibits 11 and 5, appended with the complaint. The learned Magistrate also dealt with the controversial issue of requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. against the applicants public servants. The learned Magistrate expressed the findings that the allegations of misappropriation cannot be considered as part of official duties of the applicants. Therefore, he arrived at the conclusion that the cognizable offence was shown to have been committed. He preferred to exercise the discretion and directed the police to investigate the allegations under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. We do not find any infirmity or error in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Bombay High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Mr.Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009

24] The Full Bench of this Court at its Principal Seat, in the case of Panchabhai Popatbhai Butani vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2010)1 Mh.L.J.421, dealt with the issue, whether in absence of complaint to the police, a complaint can be made directly before the Magistrate and after elaborate discussion and deliberation of the various principles of law, it has been delineated that the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. should be invoked normally before taking recourse of the power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. but this dictum of law is not free from exception and there can be cases, where non-compliance of section 154(3) would not divest the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The relevant portion from para.No.64 of the aforesaid precedent, is reproduced hereinbelow :-
Bombay High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 40 - S Kumar - Full Document
1