Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.27 seconds)
Harvinder Singh vs State on 3 February, 2015 cites

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990

25. The scope of exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the categories of cases where the High Court can exercise this power relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in „State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal‟, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of Crl. M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 15 of 42 rare cases. The illustrative cases indicated by the Apex Court are as follows: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy And Anr on 27 July, 2004

In Golconda Linga Swamy's case (supra) it was also held that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in the enactment dealing with the procedure and provide with all cases that possibly arise. When the complaint is sought to be quashed it is permissible to look into material to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are Crl. M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 42 accepted in toto.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 292 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Kamal Kishore vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 April, 2000

42. In order to justify arraying of the petitioner as an accused in the case, investigating agency has taken shelter of written representation of co-accused Ms. Madhu Singh and has subsequently claimed that the property in question was sold by the accused Ms. Madhu Singh to the petitioner with the apprehension that the property in question could be attached by the investigating agency in order to recover the cheated funds collected from the investors. The version of the co-accused is to be analysed in backdrop of the fact that an investigation is primarily instrumental in misappropriating cheated amount and the representation is not a confessional statement. Apparently, belated claim of accused Ms. Madhu Singh to question genuineness of the Sale transaction does not hold ground, precisely for the reason that there was no justification for protecting a property from its attachment, which was already lying mortgaged with the bank and the accused Crl. M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 26 of 42 company was not in a position to repay the loan. When being confronted with this situation, Mr. Kohli questioned the admissibility of this statement at the stage of summoning itself. Reliance has been placed in this regard on the judgment of this court reported as „Kamal Kishore v. State through Delhi Administration' 1997 Cri.L.J.2106, wherein this Court has observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 94 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next