Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.41 seconds)
Bhanwarlal Sharma vs K.V.Sathyanarayanan on 4 October, 2011 cites

Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs Saroj Ranjan Sarkar on 21 December, 1961

112. Under the above circumstances, this Court finds that the second complaint is not maintainable as this has been filed by the first respondent/complainant on identical facts, which were raised in the first complaint in Crl.M.P.No.507 of 2007. This Court also finds that the allegations levelled against the accused persons in both the complaints are one and the same and nothing new allegations are disclosed in the second complaint. The first respondent/complainant has also miserably failed to make out the case that even after his exercise of due diligence the facts alleged in the second complaint were not within the application of the first complaint. It is therefore crystal clear that the second complaint in Crl.M.P.No.2145 of 2007 in Crime No.703 of 2007 is not covered within the exceptional circumstances envisaged in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876 and in view of the aforestated reasons, the second complaint cannot be entertained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 269 - S K Das - Full Document

Hari Singh Mann vs Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors on 1 November, 2000

i. The previous order dated 22.11.2007 closing the first complaint as 'civil in nature' has not been challenged by the first respondent/complainant, ii. It is not the case of the first respondent that the previous order was passed on incomplete record, iii. It is also not the case of the first respondent/complainant that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had passed the earlier order dated 22.11.2007 on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, iv. The first respondent/complainant has not contested the earlier order as manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish, v. It is not the case of the first respondent/complainant that the new facts, which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous complaint, Secondly, by entertaining the protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.1946 of 2010, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has reopened his own order dated 30.10.2010, under which the second complaint was closed as 'civil in nature'. It is a well settled principle of law that once a final order is signed the Court becomes 'functus officio' and cannot review the same subsequently as contemplated under Section 362 Cr.P.C. This principle has also been highlighted and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hari Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, AIR 2001 SC 43 : (2001) 1 SCC 169.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 441 - Full Document
1   2 Next