Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.37 seconds)
Dr. A. Chandrasekhar vs The State Of Telangana on 2 July, 2021 cites

M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 April, 2021

12. Both the learned counsel have placed reliance on M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd's case (4 supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down certain guidelines with regard to the powers of the High Court, while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing proceedings/complaint/FIR, which are as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 75 - Cited by 3990 - M R Shah - Full Document

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.65 of 2021 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The respondent Nos.2 and 3/de-facto complainants filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, making certain allegations against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. The learned Magistrate, having examined the complaint, referred the said complaint to the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for filing report, holding that the material available before the Court shows the requirement of thorough probe and investigation into the allegation, as levelled in the complaint. Learned Magistrate further held that during the course of enquiry, the police must bear in mind the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of U.P., in W.P.(Criminal) No.61/2008, dated 12.11.2013 and directed to call the matter on 16.02.2021 for report. On such referral, the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2021 against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the registration of the said First Information Report, this Criminal Petition is filed to quash the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 18813 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Rishipal Singh vs State Of U.P. on 27 August, 2020

In Rishipal Singh's case (1 supra) relied upon by the Dr.SA, J 11 Crl.P. No.1621/2021 learned senior counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the case; the High Court should not convert itself into a trial Court and dwell into disputed questions of fact; Object of Section 482 Cr.P.C, is to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice; High Courts need to be circumspect and exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in exceptional circumstances depending upon facts of each case; If the allegations leading to criminal prosecution prima facie do not disclose or constitute offence, then power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised, but however disputed questions of fact cannot be decided like trial Court; Frustrated litigant need not be permitted to vent vindictiveness through abuse of process of law and such proceedings are required to be stopped at early stages.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 5 - S Gopal - Full Document

Uma Shankar Gopalka And Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 13 May, 2004

In Uma Shankar Gopalika's case (3 supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating, where there was any deception played at the very inception and that if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating and that remedy in the latter case lies before the civil Court by filing a properly constituted suit.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 176 - H S Prasad - Full Document

Md. Allauddin Khan vs The State Of Bihar on 15 April, 2019

In Mohd. Allauddin Khan's case (5 supra) relied by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3/de-facto complainants, the High Court quashed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of complaint filed by the complainants for the offences under Sections 323 and 379 r/w 34 of IPC. The matter ultimately reached the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that High Court gave importance to the fact that there was a landlord-tenant dispute pending between the parties Dr.SA, J 13 Crl.P. No.1621/2021 in civil Court in relation to a shop and that the High Court failed to see that mere pendency of civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Sections 323 and 379 r/w 34 of IPC is made out or not and that in order to see whether any prima facie case against accused for taking cognizance is made out or not, the Court is only required to see allegations made in the complaint and that in the absence of any finding recorded by High Court on this material question, impugned order is legally unsustainable and that the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and that the contradictions or/and inconsistencies in statements of witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Magistrate during trial and that the conclusions arrived at by High Court for quashing the complaint is not legally sustainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 1013 - A M Sapre - Full Document
1