Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.51 seconds)
Patel vs State on 17 June, 2011 cites

Dilawar Singh vs State Of Delhi on 5 September, 2007

21. The three aforesaid cases have been cited on behalf of the parties. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Dilawr Singh v. State of Delhi [(2007)12 SCC 641] where the difference in the investigative procedure in Chapters XII and XV of the Code has been recognized and in that case this Court also appears to have taken the view that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of an offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code and in doing so, he is not required to examine the complainant since he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein for the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 344 - A Pasayat - Full Document

M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur & Anr on 23 September, 1966

[10] AIR 1967 SC 528 in the case of M.L.Sethi v. R.P.Kapur and reiterated that though the expression "cognizance" has not been defined in Criminal Procedure Code, it indicates the point when the court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiate proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by some one. "Taking cognizance" does not involve any formal action of any kind. It occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 230 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Mohd. Yousuf vs Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr on 2 January, 2006

23. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Johan [(2006) 1 SCC 627] where it has been held that when a Magistrate orders cognizance of the offence. Once he takes cognizance of the offence, he has to follow the procedure envisaged in Chapter XV of the Code. The inquiry contemplated under Section 202(1) or investigation by a police officer or by any other person is only to help the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further on account of the fact that cognizance had already been taken by him of the offence disclosed in the complaint but issuance of process had been postponed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 565 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next