Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.78 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 452 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 427 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
R. Kalyani vs Janak C. Mehta & Ors on 24 October, 2008
On the very same principle, the learned senior
counsel has also placed reliance on i) Mosiruddin Munshi v. Mohd.
Siraj7; ii) R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta8; iii) State of Orissa v.
Saroj Kumar Sahoo9; iv) Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi)10; v) Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj11; and vi) Pasupuleti
Siva Ramakrishna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh12.
Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 February, 2019
32. In view of the above said definitions and also authoritative
pronouncements with regard to powers of this Court under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. as discussed supra, there are several aspects which are
to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. The matter is at crime
stage. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar
v. State of Maharashtra13 has categorically held that quashing
criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint
did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or
oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute
offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was
open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a
meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out
whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a
reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light
of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are
disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere.
The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when
established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for
quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant
was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a
13
. AIR 2019 SC 847
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch
19
criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint
discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against
Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be
decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not
open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the
contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could
not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to
be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused
were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not
be interdicted.